Printable View
I don't expect this will be the busiest of threads but it would be interesting to see some examples of great refereeing because it does occasionally happen.
Football could do with more refereeing like this - and I love the aftermath.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaCcB30Zc2Q
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2015/12/...riksson-tap-in
Problem with ice hockey is that its impossible for non fans to know what the f*ck is going on - and that goes for what happened there. He dived, swore at the ref and got sent off, presumably?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw
Close. Just reverse everything.
The ref is swearing at him saying "fuck you, you're going in the fucking box". The fucking box being the penalty box. The penalty was for embellishment which is a penalty that covers diving and/or exaggerating (embellishing) the effect of any illegal impact. This means there is a rule in hockey that deals with the muppets that argue, "look! look! he was in the same postcode as him and a the lace of his boot made contact so he was 'entitled' to go down!"Quote:
Originally Posted by IBK
Its a fucking great rule.
No complaints with the whistle blowing for the kick-off on Saturday.
Collina :bow:
Saw him at Highbury once, he was fantastic. I don't understand why refs are so poor. I remember discussing with a friend about referees going professional. He thought it wouldn't make them any better, I thought that of course it would, if they're full time they're obviously going to be better than amateurs. But...he was right. I don't understand why but they're just as inept as they ever were, maybe moreso.
Or maybe it's just because errors are highlighted more by endless coverage and replays?
They're also on the take.
Then the question is, why don't they use video replays?Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters To Santa
For your answer, see LDGs post above.
Because FifaQuote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Reynholm
I don't think I've heard an actual referee giving an opinion on that. I've heard plenty of idiots at FIFA and the FA saying they won't do it with no good reason why. Goalline technology is a start but that's the easy one - it either is over the line or it isn't. Anything else is open to interpretation, even the offside thing which used to be clear cut and is now so complicated with "active" and "inactive" and "phases of play" that who knows who is offside any more. Technology should definitely be used more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Reynholm
When David Dein came in to where I work in the summer he pretty much said he sees a time in the future when a game of football will be 30 minutes each way and we will have a proper stopping clock like they do in Ice Hockey with time keepers and the ref being able to review decisions and able to go back and award/punish in breaks of play.
If we introduce technology into football, then it'll just be a matter of time before the machines rise up and kill us all.
Why reduce the time to 30 minutes? I like all the other suggestions..Quote:
Originally Posted by adzzzbatch
I wouldn't reduce the time either personally, but I think there are those that would complain a match would "go on to long".Quote:
Originally Posted by fakeyank
One day I will sit and watch a game, a random one, with a stop watch and time how long a ball is out of play, dead ball situations, injuries etc. to see how much of the 90s is actually spent with no play.
With West Brom it would be ~85 min.
Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
We're not American. We won't have to stop every 2 minutes for an ad break or timeout or the cheerleaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by adzzzbatch
If technology does come in I can't see it being used that frequently, I don't think it would add that much to the game time.
Too bad. You are missing out! #TrumpForPresidentQuote:
Originally Posted by Letters To Santa