EBME Forums Forums Free discussion Out of Hours France v Ireland

Yes, and the game would continue to flow if (and in cases when) the players "played the game"!

Boxing is like that too. When all is going well, in an evenly matched bout, you don't even notice the referee. But he's still there, doesn't miss a thing, and (under some rules) participates in the scoring.

OK, turning to English football for a moment, here's a question for you all:- are modern (over-paid, egotistic - moronic, misbehaving if you like) footballers all assholes, or just a small minority? And ... is this a latter day phenomenon, or did players behave just as badly back in the days when the blokes who turned out for Sheffield Wednesday (for example) had put in a week's worth of graft in (in this case) the steelworks?

Mention of the word "graft" there brings me to propose this:- these days its all about money, and money corrupts. Nobody is worth what those players take (notice I didn't say "earn"). And (with one or two exceptions) they can't even put in a bit of effort to perform (on, and off the field) as the male role models that this country seems to so sadly lack.

One name springs to mind..... George Best (not with regards to on field actions but his off field antics)

The only recent idea (for 'Big' games only) that I like is the introduction of 'box watchers'. Most contentious issues surround penalty area claims and them guys are in a great position to help the stressed guy dressed in black (or yellow etc.) in the middle.
Footie is just too dymamic a game to gain from interruptions.

Yes, the game must flow (that is, interruptions should be minimised). The ball should remain in play by all means (within the rules, that is).

But (as I mentioned to an expert I met in the chip shop the other evening), for Big Matches (at least) why not have a system whereby points may be deducted at the end of the game (and within a stipulated period of time, say fifteen minutes from the final whistle) in view of infringements noted by every one else, but not by the referee?

Perhaps players would "play up, and play the game" a little better if they were aware of the possibility that, even after scoring 3-nil, the game as still taken from them due to "points" being deducted!

Once the final totting up had been done, other options could be considered if the final result of the match had been affected. Extra time, penalty shoot-outs ... whatever.

And what would be the point of having a referee Geoff?
The problem surely is that with all the televised football and multi-angle replays, we now have the "opportunity" to see all the things that the referee may miss (and has always probably missed).

To blow the bleedin' whistle! What do you think?

The "new technology" won't go away. So unless steps are taken to progress the rules of the game, we can expect "more of the same".

To cut out cheating (diving, handball etc.) in domestic games, points must be deducted, fining managers and players is pointless, would not be surprised if it was tax deductable. If you deduct points the managers would soon clamp down on it.

Agree. Modern technology is not going to go away or be uninvented. I think the relevant point is that last week Graham Poll (ex ref and Chairman of refs panel) said in an interview that it was time to use video replays. They use it in Rugby all the time for important plays, why not football. What is so flaming special about the 'beautiful game'.

It is no good FIFA sticking their hand in the sand and saying the referees decision is final and irrevocable. That is just claptrap. The whole world can see the evidence. Join the 21st century Sepp Blatter and all your buddies. Methinks this would not happen in a court of law even after a judge had made a ruling (wrongly), if evidence was ignored.

The referee's decision is final. But how can he make a decision on something he hasn't seen but every man and his dog has seen it on the TV replay? That's the real point.
And by the way Mike, you obviously don't know how courts and barristers work, there is a fair amount of evidence that is not presented!!

Under our "new rules" the referee won't have the final say, will he? His voice will be heard, but (in case of infringements) so will others.

But he will get to blow the whistle. There will still be only one of those!