Symphony
PQ member
Not a lot to say really......shocking defensive performance...I've rarely seen 2 centre backs with so little positional awareness.
England vs Germany
- Thread starter Vocalixx
- Start date
Dan W
RTA 24/7
I couldn't even be bothered to shout at our constant ineptitude, well if our players can't show passion and desire, is there much point in getting behind the team
Also I really want pundits to stop harping on about video technology every single time there is a debatable decision. Yes, both incidents today (in the England and Mexico games) were clear cut and could have been sorted out in seconds, but it's very rare that that is the case. When would we stop play to review these decisions?
Also I really want pundits to stop harping on about video technology every single time there is a debatable decision. Yes, both incidents today (in the England and Mexico games) were clear cut and could have been sorted out in seconds, but it's very rare that that is the case. When would we stop play to review these decisions?
Symphony
PQ member
I think in the Mexico game......clearly that would have been easy to sort out.
1. Ball is in the net
2. Mexico challenge the decision
3. Replay shown to 4th official
4. Decision made
5. Game restarted
Should take about 30 seconds.
Football is pretty much the only major sport not to embrace technology...it's been a great help in cricket and tennis, and also in both codes of Rugby where RL particularly have been using it for years.
In the case of Lampard...once the appeal for the goal as been made.....stop play, review the video, make a decision....if a goal then obvious what happens. If not, similar approach to whoever is in possession when a player needs treatment for an injury.....just give the ball back to them either from a throw in, drop ball....it's not that difficult if we really want to sort it out.
1. Ball is in the net
2. Mexico challenge the decision
3. Replay shown to 4th official
4. Decision made
5. Game restarted
Should take about 30 seconds.
Football is pretty much the only major sport not to embrace technology...it's been a great help in cricket and tennis, and also in both codes of Rugby where RL particularly have been using it for years.
In the case of Lampard...once the appeal for the goal as been made.....stop play, review the video, make a decision....if a goal then obvious what happens. If not, similar approach to whoever is in possession when a player needs treatment for an injury.....just give the ball back to them either from a throw in, drop ball....it's not that difficult if we really want to sort it out.
Power_Metal_Dom
Epic Metaller
I'm all for technology making the game fairer because at the end of the day England scored a goal yesterday (it just wasn't acknowledged by 3 officials ¬_¬ ) and I agree it really shouldn't take long to sort stuff out and give teams the best judgement possible where decisions at this level can have radical consequences.
That said, I wish I would stop hearing the "if the goal had been given we might have had the motivation to win" excuse. England deserved to lose, Germany were better.
Looking forward to Brazil vs. Chile tonight
That said, I wish I would stop hearing the "if the goal had been given we might have had the motivation to win" excuse. England deserved to lose, Germany were better.
Looking forward to Brazil vs. Chile tonight
Symphony
PQ member
Should be a good game tonight.......I've got Brazil in the sweepstake at work so I'll be rooting for them. Decided that I should really support Argentina as they do have the next biggest population of Welsh people outside of Wales...down in Patagonia I believe.
Dan W
RTA 24/7
Admittedly the 2 decisions yesterday would have taken 30secs to sort out but there are loads of decisions which aren't that easy to decide on, and can even be argued either way after the game with different people seeing different viewpoints. Ultimately the decision will still be subject to human error and depends on whether the video footage shows the incident in a significant enough detail (this was actually bought up by some Super League coaches in Rugby League as an argument to discard the usage of video replays)
There would need to be clear boundaries for the types of incidents covered by replays and also a limit to the number of challenges
As for restarting, in all sports that replays are used in, there are clearly defined points at which replays can be used and at which play can continue:
Rugby - try or not (with penalty or scrum given if not)
Tennis - point won, lost or replayed
NFL - TD, penalty, yardage gained/lost
Cricket - In or out (batsman continues or is replaced)
For football, the decision to challenge an officials decision neccesarily might not occur on a break of play
In the case of the Mexico - Argentina game it would have been simple, either a goal or a free kick to Mexico for the offside
In the case of the England - Germany game it isn't as clear cut. This is due to the fact that Germany launched a counterattack and only just put the ball wide of the goal. It might also be possible to abuse the system, eg challenging a call just to prevent a side catching you out on the counterattack (say if England felt that a German had handled a ball in the buildup to either the German's 3rd or 4th goals). This would completely ruin the flow of a game and allow teams to effectively cheat by stopping teams breaking quickly
The only way of preventing this is to have some way of penalising a team for an incorrect challenge (eg in NFL they lose a time-out, tennis they lose one of their challenges), but then the act of challenging shouldn't occur too often in a football game
There would need to be clear boundaries for the types of incidents covered by replays and also a limit to the number of challenges
As for restarting, in all sports that replays are used in, there are clearly defined points at which replays can be used and at which play can continue:
Rugby - try or not (with penalty or scrum given if not)
Tennis - point won, lost or replayed
NFL - TD, penalty, yardage gained/lost
Cricket - In or out (batsman continues or is replaced)
For football, the decision to challenge an officials decision neccesarily might not occur on a break of play
In the case of the Mexico - Argentina game it would have been simple, either a goal or a free kick to Mexico for the offside
In the case of the England - Germany game it isn't as clear cut. This is due to the fact that Germany launched a counterattack and only just put the ball wide of the goal. It might also be possible to abuse the system, eg challenging a call just to prevent a side catching you out on the counterattack (say if England felt that a German had handled a ball in the buildup to either the German's 3rd or 4th goals). This would completely ruin the flow of a game and allow teams to effectively cheat by stopping teams breaking quickly
The only way of preventing this is to have some way of penalising a team for an incorrect challenge (eg in NFL they lose a time-out, tennis they lose one of their challenges), but then the act of challenging shouldn't occur too often in a football game
Kingface
Member
As horrible as it was seeing Lampard's "Ghost Goal" and Argentina's first goal against Mexico being allowed to stand, I have to admit that I personally think decisions like this make Football all the more interesting and everybody loves a bit of controversy, even if they won't admit it!
Plus there's the fact that those incorrect decisions being made, especially with them not even being close-run things, means that the officials were simply incompetent and should be punished.
Plus there's the fact that those incorrect decisions being made, especially with them not even being close-run things, means that the officials were simply incompetent and should be punished.
Incorrect decisions absolutely do NOT make football more interesting. They are like car crashes. Sure everyone wants to have a look and talk about them when they happen, but that does not mean we should be encouraging them.
Kingface
Member
Similar threads
