Football 2015/16

[eFestivals]

Any attempt to play the ball is offside now though. Close or not.

 

it's not tho, is it?

 

If Liverpool's goalie had swung his foot at the same ball at the same moment, he'd be attempting to play the ball but not interfering with play.

 

So there's a point - a grey area - where "not close enough" becomes "too close".

 

There can never be an arbitrary right or wrong on "any attempt to play the ball is offside", as my extreme hypothetical case hopefully demonstrates.

[The Nal]

it's not tho, is it?

 

If Liverpool's goalie had swung his foot at the same ball at the same moment, he'd be attempting to play the ball but not interfering with play.

 

So there's a point - a grey area - where "not close enough" becomes "too close".

 

There can never be an arbitrary right or wrong on "any attempt to play the ball is offside", as my extreme hypothetical case hopefully demonstrates.

 

"Any attempt to play the ball" is different to "interfering with play". A player can interfere with play and be nowhere near the ball.

 

Take Suarez and Sterling at LFC. Pulled defenders all over the place with dummy runs, miles away from the ball, allowing Sturridge et al to nearly walk the ball into the net at times due to the giant chasm created by the runs and tracking defenders.

 

So yeah, I agree it'll never be black and white but last nights was as clear cut as it gets.

 

Linekers debut on BT tonight. Not entirely confident Utd will walk this one as people are predicting. 3 shots on target in 2 games............. Need to sign a striker.

Edited August 18, 2015 by The Nal

[TheGayTent]

Nice words, but how would the ref last night make a better decision last night by being answerable to you today?

Or even by being answerable to a 'refs committee' today?

The only thing that you, or a refs committee, can do is try to explain to him why last night's decision was the wrong call, and hope that he gets it right next time.

The only "meaningful action" that can be taken against the ref is to stop him reffing games - which doesn't lead to any better decisions, ever.

If we changed the system, we're still stuck with refs having to make judgements calls over grey areas, and the very fact of them being grey areas means there is no perfect decision to have had.

So absolutely nothing pans out any differently to how it does now.

Sorry to piss on your fireworks. Perhaps buy waterproof ones next time?

Suffering from brain fade again today?

[eFestivals]

"Any attempt to play the ball" is different to "interfering with play". A player can interfere with play and be nowhere near the ball.

 

So yeah, I agree it'll never be black and white but last nights was as clear cut as it gets.

Yep - I've just demonstrated that attempting to play the ball is meaningless, and it's about interference.

And I agree that last night's should count as interfering and the ref got it wrong, but it's a judgement call with no definitive line that is crossed to make it right or wrong.

 

There's no way to improve the ref's call, there can only be a hope that ref calls it right.

 

Linekers debut on BT tonight. Not entirely confident Utd will walk this one as people are predicting. 3 shots on target in 2 games............. Need to sign a striker.

 

I've just seen that Liverpool have them at OT in a few weeks. Given how long it took LvG to get them ticking last season it's probably a good time to play them.

[eFestivals]

Suffering from brain fade again today?

 

Nope, i'm pointing out the real-world flaws in your idea.

 

Unless you are able to tell me how the likes of you calling out the ref as having got it wrong gives an improvement from other refs calling out the ref as having got it wrong...?

[TheGayTent]

Nope, i'm pointing out the real-world flaws in your idea.

Unless you are able to tell me how the likes of you calling out the ref as having got it wrong gives an improvement from other refs calling out the ref as having got it wrong...?

It's very simple. A referee who demonstrates he isn't competent to be in the select group of referees, is dropped from the select group of referees.

Let's take the easy example of Anthony Taylor. This is the referee who upon becoming a top flight referee had 6 of his first 7 red cards issued, rescinded on appeal...including 2 in the same game for separate incidents.

Instead of being held accountable and dropped from the elite list, he was rewarded by given charge of the League Cup Final.

Meanwhile good referees cannot make the jump to elite level. Not until someone incompetent retires...

[eFestivals]

It's very simple. A referee who demonstrates he isn't competent to be in the select group of referees, is dropped from the select group of referees.

which happens already.

The only difference between what you say and now is that the judgement is made by other refs, and not you the sometimes-biased fan.

Given that a sometimes-biased fan isn't the best person to make the judgement, things as they stand are better than your suggestion.

Next?

 

Let's take the easy example of Anthony Taylor. This is the referee who upon becoming a top flight referee had 6 of his first 7 red cards issued, rescinded on appeal...including 2 in the same game for separate incidents.

Instead of being held accountable and dropped from the elite list, he was rewarded by given charge of the League Cup Final.

Meanwhile good referees cannot make the jump to elite level. Not until someone incompetent retires...

So what you're saying is that you believe yourself to be a better judge of refs than pro-refs are a judge of refs.

All you need to do now is say why you think you're that better judge. This should be interesting.

Edited August 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: there is something which impacts into the judgement of those pro-refs and perhaps influences how they respond to errors amoungst their number, and that's the fact that those pro-refs are pro-refs - employees on a wage.

 

Those pro-refs will, I guess, offer a bit of job security to those who they offer jobs, so that there's able to be pro-refs in the first place - so sackings won't be done too lightly because of that.

 

If there's no job security there are unlikely to be pro-refs, meaning lower standard non-pro-refs.

 

Or at a minimum a number of the best refs would turn down that insecure job to keep on doing their current non-ref job, leading to a lower standard of refs (the very opposite of what you wish to achieve).

 

As I've said, your theory is good, but you've yet to demonstrate any improvement of refs coming via your method. Your theory only really works if refs are deliberately choosing to be a bit shit, which no one really thinks they are (I hope).

 

They make a call based on the one view they have at the moment of the incident. Sometimes they'll get that wrong.

 

And even with a million views of the incident, they'd still make an opposite call sometimes to a punter's view, because much are grey area judgement calls with no arbitrary right or wrong.

[TheGayTent]

which happens already.

The only difference between what you say and now is that the judgement is made by other refs, and not you the sometimes-biased fan.

Given that a sometimes-biased fan isn't the best person to make the judgement, things as they stand are better than your suggestion.

Next?

Wrong twice.

That isn't what happens now, and that is nothing like what I've suggested.

So what you're saying is that you believe yourself to be a better judge of refs than pro-refs are a judge of refs.

All you need to do now is say why you think you're that better judge. This should be interesting.

Ooh what a surprise, wrong again.

What I've said before and will again for the retarded is that the referees who are assessed by their mates should make those assessments available. Otherwise, there's no point in making the assessments.

As the case of Taylor clearly demonstrates. You've proven yourself to be shit, but don't worry lad, go and referee the League Cup Final as reward.

[TheGayTent]

By the way, as you clearly aren't aware. Referees on the elite level list draw a salary. Football league referees are paid on a match basis.

[ThomThomDrum]

Refs judging refs and having the power to punish refs by dropping them makes no sense to me. Refs would protect each other as happens in other "fraternities".

 

Refs/officials need to be held accountable to some degree and maybe the threat of some form of real punishment would contribute to higher standards. If not by simply making it easier to get rid of obviously terrible refs a lot quicker/easier

[mjsell]

I Like bad refereeing decisions, long may it continue.

[WS_Jack_III]

I've been saying for years football needs a video assistant. He/she could have informed the ref that it was offside as the Liverpool team were celebrating.

[kaosmark2]

And they're soooo much better with Can on the pitch, and Hendo gives the team better options than Milner ... I can't see the middle pairing of Hendo and Milner lasting too long.

What happened to Milner being streets ahead of cabaye and any other midfielder who doesn't guaranteeably start for a top 3 team?

[eFestivals]

By the way, as you clearly aren't aware. Referees on the elite level list draw a salary. Football league referees are paid on a match basis.

 

I'm well aware, thanks.

 

Funnily enough, some other people know stuff about footie, and not just you.

 

And funnily enough, if they disagree with you it doesn't mean they know shit. Sometimes that's you.

[eFestivals]

What happened to Milner being streets ahead of cabaye and any other midfielder who doesn't guaranteeably start for a top 3 team?

 

Milner's as good. What he's not is the creative force Liverpool need from there (or at least, not as good as some others).

[eFestivals]

I Like bad refereeing decisions, long may it continue.

 

I agree.

 

Football would be a more boring game if perfect decisions were possible.

 

Not that they are, which is why video reffing is a stupid idea.

[eFestivals]

Wrong twice.

That isn't what happens now, and that is nothing like what I've suggested.

it's exactly what happens. Prem refs are assessed on each and every game.

 

What I've said before and will again for the retarded is that the referees who are assessed by their mates should make those assessments available. Otherwise, there's no point in making the assessments.

 

Yes, anyone who dares disagree with you is a retard, not the person who has to use insults because they can't make their argument stand up.

If the assessments are good, it makes fuck all difference of they're publicly available or not.

 

The point should be good assessments. Know-nothing-biased-you-or-me making the assessments doesn't make them better.

 

And due to the structure that exists - has been *demanded* to exist by people like you on the basis that it would make reffing better - has added-in some unwanted consequences, because no one decent will be attracted to a job that's unsustainable via sackings at a fuck-up that's beyond the pale for stupid fans.

 

If you want a system where dropping refs is easily done, then we have to go back to a system where refs are only-amateurs - and accept the in-built flaws that come with it (or we stay how we are and accept those in-built flaws).

 

As the case of Taylor clearly demonstrates. You've proven yourself to be shit, but don't worry lad, go and referee the League Cup Final as reward.

Then it's clearly the case that your assessments are not matching the refs.

Why do you think you're a better ref than pro-refs are? Because that could be the only logical outcome of your take on things.

Someone has to make the assessment. Only an idiot would suggest those assessments are better made by less qualified people than qualified people.

Edited August 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

I don't like bad decisions, but it's vastly preferable to video replays.

[kaosmark2]

Yes, anyone who dares disagree with you is a retard, not the person who has to use insults because they can't make their argument stand up.

Quoted for irony value.

[eFestivals]

I've been saying for years football needs a video assistant. He/she could have informed the ref that it was offside as the Liverpool team were celebrating.

It's a shit idea.

While it's possible to rectify some decisions, it's not possible to rectify all of them (for instance a call of offside that shouldn't have been made).

So it then becomes a lottery around the offences that happen, rather than a lottery of a ref's good (or not) judgement. The point is it remains that lottery, and nothing is improved overall.

[eFestivals]

Quoted for irony value.

hey, I might be guilty of that sometimes, but not here.

I've asked TGT some perfectly valid questions about how his ideas make things better. He couldn't give any sensible answer, he could only give insults.

One to me, I'd say.

I'm sure TGT will dispute that tho, and I'm betting he'll need the word retard to do so.

[kaosmark2]

hey, I might be guilty of that sometimes, but not here.

I've asked TGT some perfectly valid questions about how his ideas make things better. He couldn't give any sensible answer, he could only give insults.

One to me, I'd say.

I'm sure TGT will dispute that tho, and I'm betting he'll need the word retard to do so.

You do it nearly every day somewhere on this forum.

And comments like "one to me" don't help. Discussions are meant to provoke thought and ideas, not compare points or dick sizes.

[eFestivals]

Refs judging refs and having the power to punish refs by dropping them makes no sense to me. Refs would protect each other as happens in other "fraternities".

 

hurray! A decent counter argument, more than TGT managed.

And I agree with you to a certain extent, tho there's not huge mileage in them protecting their 'mates' like that. It just comes back onto them all ultimately if they take that idea too far.

 

What they do have to do is to protect they system they have in place - where reffing is a job for the top refs - but ultimately that's based around the selection of who is made a top ref in the first place. If you have a greater turnover of refs (as TGT's system would cause, by more-regular dropping of refs) then that initial ref selection becomes more important ... and if it's being fucked up at the current levels then it'll be fucked up all the more when more refs are being selected.

 

 

Refs/officials need to be held accountable to some degree and maybe the threat of some form of real punishment would contribute to higher standards. If not by simply making it easier to get rid of obviously terrible refs a lot quicker/easier

The threat of some form of punishment can only make their reffing better if they're currently CHOOSING to do a worse job than they might otherwise do with the threat of sanctions hanging over them.

 

Which immediately shows that idea up as one that's rather daft, unless you do think refs are choosing to do a bad job at the mo?

 

And getting rid of 'bad' refs easily only makes things better if there are better refs to come in in their place ... which there aren't (unless you think the current system is deliberately corrupt?) because it's the refs who have proved themselves the better refs who get the offer of being the pro-refs in the first place.

 

It's easy to say "we want better reffing". If you work the issues thru tho it's difficult to find any space for there to be the better refs to give that better reffing.

Edited August 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You do it nearly every day somewhere on this forum.

You'll have difficulty finding anywhere I've done it for all of this year at least, but keep to your prejudices if you like.

And comments like "one to me" don't help. Discussions are meant to provoke thought and ideas, not compare points or dick sizes.

says the man who decided to wave his willy in the air in support of other dick(head) waving to avoid the discussion..