Football 2015/16

[TheGayTent]

I'm well aware, thanks.

Really? It doesn't come across from your posts about referees.

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

Oh absolutely of course. Many know a lot more than me. As you continue to demonstrate though, you aren't one of them.

[mjsell]

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.

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

 

Not that I want to get involved, but have you not just proved yourself wrong in the exact same post?

 

Is calling someone a dickhead not an insult these days? even if you hide it with brackets..

Edited August 18, 2015 by mjsell

[TheGayTent]

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

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).

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.

99% of your post is completely irrelevant as you're missing the point.

I haven't got the time to explain now it'll have to wait until I've finished work.

[eFestivals]

Really? It doesn't come across from your posts about referees.

ywes, because I didn't differentiate "pro refs" from all other refs, did I?

Do you have anything to say, or is insults the limit to the ideas you have?

Oh absolutely of course. Many know a lot more than me. As you continue to demonstrate though, you aren't one of them.

And yet I have points to make, and you only have insults.

Very well done, mindless twat.

[eFestivals]

Not that I want to get involved, but have you not just proved yourself wrong in the exact same post?

 

Is calling someone a dickhead not an insult these days? even if you hide it with brackets..

I guess you don't do irony. Never mind.

I was pointing out that matey was managing to do all he was condemning, to add to the other idiocy here today.

I didn't start the insults. I've tried to discuss. If there's a problem here today it's not me.

Edited August 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

99% of your post is completely irrelevant as you're missing the point.

am I? Is getting the best out of refs not your point, then?

I haven't got the time to explain now it'll have to wait until I've finished work.

time for insults but no time to explain why your ideas le3ad to better reffing.

And here's betting that without this challenge you'd not be heard of again today on this subject. Now there's a challenge, perhaps you might later manage with what you've failed at today. We'll see.

[The Nal]

Apparently thats the Pedro/Utd deal done now. £22m.

 

That could be a front four of:

 

Pedro Mata Memphis

        Rooney

 

I'll take that.

[TheGayTent]

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

There is zero point in an assessment if the assessment is biased and/or the results of that assessment are not acted upon.

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.

You're not a retard for disagreeing with me, you're a retard for arguing against something when you clearly have no knowledge of the current system, and also for not understanding the point being made about an improvement to that system.

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

I have never suggested you or I should be making assessments.

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).

Rubbish. We already (almost) have that system. We just don't use it because old boys protect their mates. Why? How? Because there is no accountability...

...getting this yet?

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

Wrong.

We've already established that by virtue of the fact the 'experts' have over ruled one of their own. I.e. The referee's decision was over turned.

You see they can't be protected here because the visibility is there to see. I.e. TV replays and media attention.

The problem is, no action is then taken for persistent offenders.

Why do you think you're a better ref than pro-refs are?

I don't.

Because that could be the only logical outcome of your take on things.

Wrong. Again.

Wrong again, because you don't understand the current system, it's failings, and the proposed alternative. I.e. Visibility and accountability.

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

Quite...

...sometimes it's better to remain silent...

[kaosmark2]

I don't actually think public accountability would improve reffing, it'd just satisfy moaning fans (like me), I was just mocking Neil's debate tactics. That said, I do agree with TGT's point about Anthony Taylor, statistically his record suggests he's failed a large number of big decisions given how many get overturned, and clearly he'll have missed ones the other way. Still, an example of how the system fails doesn't provide evidence that any particular alternative would be better.

 

 

Apparently thats the Pedro/Utd deal done now. £22m.

 

That could be a front four of:

 

Pedro Mata Memphis

        Rooney

 

I'll take that.

Where does Ashley Young fit in?

 

More seriously, while that's a fairly impressive front 4 name-wise, only Depay has been in form in the past 9+ months? I'm also of the opinion that Rooney is much better playing off another striker or as part of a front 3 than in any sort of "lone" striker position, and there's still a distinct lack of alternatives. Good first 11s don't get top 4, good first 16s do.

[mjsell]

one thing is for certain - if video replays existed, the last few pages of this thread would have been far more dull.

 

Apparently thats the Pedro/Utd deal done now. £22m.

 

That could be a front four of:

 

Pedro Mata Memphis

        Rooney

 

I'll take that.

 

I'm assuming Depay will improve as the season goes on. Its virtually impossible for Rooney not to improve on the first two games this season - he has been truly dreadful. I've never been a fan of Pedro, think he is overrated, but still better than Janazai and Young. Mata is pure class though.

 

All in all that front four doesn't fill me with dread.

[TheGayTent]

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.

Realise i'm probably boring others now, but you haven't asked any valid questions As you've demonstrated by your precious posts that you don't understand the current system and therefore don't understand an amendment to that system.

No use of retard anywhere.

Can you respond without using at least 3 smileys?

[The Nal]

I don't actually think public accountability would improve reffing, it'd just satisfy moaning fans (like me), I was just mocking Neil's debate tactics. That said, I do agree with TGT's point about Anthony Taylor, statistically his record suggests he's failed a large number of big decisions given how many get overturned, and clearly he'll have missed ones the other way. Still, an example of how the system fails doesn't provide evidence that any particular alternative would be better.

 

 

Where does Ashley Young fit in?

 

More seriously, while that's a fairly impressive front 4 name-wise, only Depay has been in form in the past 9+ months? I'm also of the opinion that Rooney is much better playing off another striker or as part of a front 3 than in any sort of "lone" striker position, and there's still a distinct lack of alternatives. Good first 11s don't get top 4, good first 16s do.

 

Mata has been decent and is really finding his feet now. First name on the team sheet. Rooney has been piss though yeah.

 

Alternatives up front - Ashley Young, Valencia, Januzaj, Hernandez. We'll see if the Pedro deal comes through though.

 

Anyway how are you feeling about your lot this season? Shite enough start and Utd and Arsenal next.

 

 

I've never been a fan of Pedro, think he is overrated,

 

Me too but hes been consistently playing 50 games a season for possibly the best football team ever so he must have something!

 

Although John O'Shea played 250 times for Utd and won 5 leagues.

Edited August 18, 2015 by The Nal

[TheGayTent]

I Like bad refereeing decisions, long may it continue.

I think the number of terrible referring decisions could and should be reduced (without stopping the game for TV replays).

You're never going to remove poor decisions completely mind, and I agree they can make for good entertainment.

[mjsell]

I think the number of terrible referring decisions could and should be reduced (without stopping the game for TV replays).

You're never going to remove poor decisions completely mind, and I agree they can make for good entertainment.

 

I agree with this. Personally I'm of the opinion that we should go down the American sports' route and have more than one ref.

 

Although that would probably be more controversial to introduce than video replays - human beings working together to come to a more reasoned and hopefully more accurate decision seems to be a concept lost in British sport.

 

Edit: would just like to correct my last sentence. There are several examples where this happens. Cricket and Netball being two I have thought of.

Edited August 18, 2015 by mjsell

[TheGayTent]

I agree with this. Personally I'm of the opinion that we should go down the American sports' route and have more than one ref.

Although that would probably be more controversial to introduce than video replays - human beings working together to come to a more reasoned and hopefully more accurate decision seems to be a concept lost in British sport.

Well we trialled it already sort of didn't we? It didn't appear to work (as the Irish will testify). Whether that was because it was a bad idea or whether it was implemented badly I don't know?

Did anyone ever notice a decision being over turned by either of the extra officials?

[sdvruxk]

More seriously, while that's a fairly impressive front 4 name-wise, only Depay has been in form in the past 9+ months? I'm also of the opinion that Rooney is much better playing off another striker or as part of a front 3 than in any sort of "lone" striker position, and there's still a distinct lack of alternatives. Good first 11s don't get top 4, good first 16s do.

I'd say Mata has played well this year also.

As it stands at the minute, we're in desperate need of another striker but even then if we do get someone in they won't be top class as surely that's Rooneys position this season. Obviously we've been crying out for a CB for a while but again it doesn't appear as if that's going to happen. We might be okay with the CBs if they can stay fit, which is easier said than done with the ones we've got.

Edit- the addition of Schniderlin has so far aided the defensive frailties of last season but we're only two games in

Edited August 18, 2015 by sdvruxk

[mjsell]

Well we trialled it already sort of didn't we? It didn't appear to work (as the Irish will testify). Whether that was because it was a bad idea or whether it was implemented badly I don't know?

Did anyone ever notice a decision being over turned by either of the extra officials?

 

How was it trialled? I honestly didn't even know it had been looked at

 

Just from your last sentence it strikes me that they weren't extra refs, but extra officials working for 'the' ref, which is completely different (like the officials behind the goals in European matches - that literally do nothing).

[TheGayTent]

How was it trialled? I honestly didn't even know it had been looked at

Just from your last sentence it strikes me that they weren't extra refs, but extra officials working for 'the' ref, which is completely different (like the officials behind the goals in European matches - that literally do nothing).

Yes, that's what I was referring too, and I realise it wasn't quite what you meant (hence the sort of comment). And agreed, they didn't appear to be of any value. I can't remember a single instance when they over ruled the referee or the referee changed a decision after consultation with one of them.

Though, my memory is playing tricks I think. I don't think they were used in that France v Ireland qualification game. Perhaps the result would have been different had they been used that day??

[eFestivals]

There is zero point in an assessment if the assessment is biased and/or the results of that assessment are not acted upon.

Punishing a ref by removing that ref will not make that ref a better ref, unless you believe refs are choosing to make bad decisions.

There is zero point in removing a ref unless there's a better ref available to come in their place.

Given that the ref who would be replaced had previously been identified as the best ref to make the step up, there is no better ref available unless the first ref has been mis-identified - which is quite possible, but which puts the source of the problem at that identification stage and not anywhere else.

 

You're not a retard for disagreeing with me, you're a retard for arguing against something when you clearly have no knowledge of the current system, and also for not understanding the point being made about an improvement to that system.

All pro refs are assessed on every game. You're the one claiming they're not; it ain't me that's mis-understanding the system.

 

I'm all for improving the quality of reffing.

 

I'm not persuaded by meaningless hyperbole which doesn't lead to any better refs (see my points in my words just above).

 

I have never suggested you or I should be making assessments.

Someone has to, and they'd need to be better than those who currently make the assessments.

If it's not you or me, who is it, and why will they be better than those who assess now?

 

Rubbish. We already (almost) have that system. We just don't use it because old boys protect their mates. Why? How? Because there is no accountability...

...getting this yet?

 

The pro refs are accountable to the pro reffing organisation who are accountable to the FA who are accountable to FIFA.

 

The whole idea of "protecting their mates" is your own invention based only on you having witnessed errors in reffing when there are always errors in reffing.

 

If there's any "protection" going on, is that them "protecting their mates" or is it them protecting the system which enables some refs to be pro refs?

 

Arguments can be made against pro-reffing, but for all the while we have pro-reffing it comes with the built-in flaw that pro-reffing is some people's livelihood which causes difficulties in removing people from being pro-refs.

 

Wrong.

We've already established that by virtue of the fact the 'experts' have over ruled one of their own. I.e. The referee's decision was over turned.

Ahhh ... you seem to be thinking that perfect reffing is possible.

 

Because without perfect reffing it's absolutely certain that some decisions will be regarded as wrong by others (tho often via evidence not available to the ref at the time of his decision).

 

Just because a ref gets something wrong does't make that ref a bad ref. Being wrong sometimes is a unavoidable consequence of being a ref.

 

You see they can't be protected here because the visibility is there to see. I.e. TV replays and media attention.

The problem is, no action is then taken for persistent offenders.

that's contrary to the facts. Refs *DO* get dropped.

 

Wrong again, because you don't understand the current system, it's failings, and the proposed alternative. I.e. Visibility and accountability.

I understand it better than you. It's not me saying they're not assessed on every game.

And I see the failings in the current system. What i don'#t see is you or anyone else offering a better system.

Punishing refs for their errors only improves things if it's possible to bully a ref (or anyone) into having better judgement ... which it's not.

 

And dropping refs only leads to better reffing if there's better refs available ... and if there are, the question should be about "why wasn't that better ref appointed originally in place of the duff ref?", and not anything else.

[kaosmark2]

Mata has been decent and is really finding his feet now. First name on the team sheet. Rooney has been piss though yeah.

 

Alternatives up front - Ashley Young, Valencia, Januzaj, Hernandez. We'll see if the Pedro deal comes through though.

 

Anyway how are you feeling about your lot this season? Shite enough start and Utd and Arsenal next.

Matching his form from his 2nd season at Chelsea yet? I'm starting to think that was an aberration.

 

Rooney's been crap, but as I said, I don't think lone striker suits him.

 

 

I'm feeling OK about us. No chance we'll replicate our 5th finish or close but we should be safe and might have a swing at top half or a cup run. Mbemba and Wijnaldum look good signings based on the 2 games so far. Results weren't great combined but individually OK. When the fixture list came out I wouldn't panic if we only got 2 points from the first 4 games and I still think that's fair. We need to get a win down ASAP, but "possible" accepts that wins against the big boys are optimistic, and Swansea away is a tough fixture for anyone in the league. October and November are big really, after City we have 6 winnable games in a row and probably need to get at least 4 there to balance the dodgy start.

 

Lots of talk about Thauvin joining as well, possibly involving a Cabella swap deal. If so I feel we'd have plenty going forward, Thauvin, Wijnaldum, Mitrovic, Cisse, Perez, De Jong, Sissoko is a good array of attacking talent. Still vulnerable at the back though and I'd prefer a defensive signing.

[eFestivals]

an example of how the system fails doesn't provide evidence that any particular alternative would be better.

Spot on!

There's only a better system if there's better refs for that better system ... so the questions should be around appointing those bwetter refs in the first place by having a better system of identifying those better refs.

[TheGayTent]

Spot on!

There's only a better system if there's better refs for that better system ... so the questions should be around appointing those bwetter refs in the first place by having a better system of identifying those better refs.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Currently there is no reward for good performance nor is there any accountability for poor performance.

Changing the above, would lead to better refereeing standards.

There is a lot wrong with your previous post to this. Which will take me some time again to respond to.

[eFestivals]

Realise i'm probably boring others now, but you haven't asked any valid questions As you've demonstrated by your precious posts that you don't understand the current system and therefore don't understand an amendment to that system.

No use of retard anywhere.

Can you respond without using at least 3 smileys?

 

I've asked you to demonstrate how your take on things would lead to better reffing.

 

Only better refs, identified as better before any cock-up can lead to better reffing.

 

Identifying them as crap after the event only proves that the initial choice of that ref was wrong, rather than the issue being about their reffing.

 

And so better reffing can only come via better identification of the good refs BEFORE BEING APPOINTED rather than dropping them after they've been declared the best to make the step up.

 

[eFestivals]

Wrong wrong wrong.

Currently there is no reward for good performance nor is there any accountability for poor performance.

Changing the above, would lead to better refereeing standards.

There is a lot wrong with your previous post to this. Which will take me some time again to respond to.

 

so you think refs are making bad decisions because no one is giving them a choccie as a reward.

 

Does your split-second judgement of what you've believe you've seen improve if you're paid more?

 

I guess that sort of tunnel vision comes from a belief that people only do things for money.

 

I'm happy for you to stick with that. I'll stick with sanity.

 

So no need for any later reply, unless you're wanting reviews of your new career in comedy?

[mjsell]

Your debate/argument is one of the most meaningless ones I've ever seen.

 

Should be looking at implementing on-the-field changes to help refs and alter attitudes towards post-match decisions (such as making it easier to reverse decisions/ give out more punishments if needed) - not meaningless assessments.

 

The way football is so unaccepting that mistakes are made and incidents are missed is remarkable. It is said every week, that refs are human, which is a good thing, but they need to be treated like human decisions (ie. accepting that wrong ones are made)

Edited August 18, 2015 by mjsell