[Phil]

kfay, on Jul 5 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

Isn't a game misconduct accompanied by a suspension for the next game?

NHL Rules

I asked a NHL junkie and double checked it against the NHL site.

Refs cannot impose a misconduct penalty against a player for the next game. The film is sent to Toronto who makes the decision on a suspension.

[Free]

Codo, on Jul 5 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

Games like icehockey and American Football are very used to a lot of breaks. So it is easy to use the breaks for a video challenge. Football is different. The rules try to make the game as fluent as possible. Video challenge have a lot of disadvantages besides their obvious advantages, so they are seldom the solution. (of course they had been in the 1/8 finals...)

It's true that other sports are used to a lot of breaks. That's why I propose NOT to use challenges, but to let the 4th ref reconsider based on video footage. This doesn't stop the game, in the contrary: players don't have to protest against a doubtful decision because video footage will be used to confirm/modify the made decision.

Not sure about this, but I think the 4th ref doesn't have a full time job...

[G_R__E_G]

Phil, on Jul 6 2010, 01:08 AM, said:

kfay, on Jul 5 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

Isn't a game misconduct accompanied by a suspension for the next game?

NHL Rules

I asked a NHL junkie and double checked it against the NHL site.

Refs cannot impose a misconduct penalty against a player for the next game. The film is sent to Toronto who makes the decision on a suspension.

That is correct and further to that it's probably only about 5% of game misconducts that result in further suspensions in the NHL.

[gwnn]

The proposition I read somewhere was to let the coaches have 2 chances each to 'challenge', regardless of the success of the challenges. Sounds sensible to me. Anyway offside could also be done electronically, by putting chips in the players. Yes yes sign of the beast and end days

Looks to me that there are four important types of decisions that are routinely gotten wrong:
-offsides
-penalties (i.e. fouls in the penalty area)
-off the ball offences (for red cards)
-goals i.e. has the ball gone in?

I think the fourth is the least common major mistake and the last decision like this that I remember before 2010 was Roy Carroll's very funny blunder about three years ago:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=WevC_zuu2n4

It is very characteristic of FIFA that they are thinking of introducing technology to probably the least prevalent refereeing problem.

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Jul 6 2010, 09:26 AM, said:

The proposition I read somewhere was to let the coaches have 2 chances each to 'challenge', regardless of the success of the challenges. Sounds sensible to me. Anyway offside could also be done electronically, by putting chips in the players. Yes yes sign of the beast and end days

Looks to me that there are four important types of decisions that are routinely gotten wrong:
-offsides
-penalties (i.e. fouls in the penalty area)
-off the ball offences (for red cards)
-goals i.e. has the ball gone in?

I think the fourth is the least common major mistake and the last decision like this that I remember before 2010 was Roy Carroll's very funny blunder about three years ago:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=WevC_zuu2n4

It is very characteristic of FIFA that they are thinking of introducing technology to probably the least prevalent refereeing problem.

Stay away from 666 and just use wrist/ankle bands

[jjbrr]

FIFA are a bunch of knuckle-dragging droolers for not implementing video replays for the refs imo.

[MickyB]

Goal wrongly given

[gwnn]

oh yea that was a funny one haha

[Tomi2]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=SsYfZFvexmQ

this is better!

Bayern München vs FC Nürnberg, with this goal Bayern won 1-0

Nürnberg, needing every point to avoid beein relegated, protested, and for some unbelievable reasons German Footabal Federation overruled the decision and made the teams replay the match. This decision was not covered by the rules that say "once a decision has been finally made by the referee, it can not be overruled anymore by outstanding authorities"
[reminds me of that England-Sweden case in Belgium]

funny thing is Bayern won 5-1 in the rematch and Nürnberg got relegated because of their bad goal difference

[gwnn]

But when was this? Do you agree that goal line decisions are a rarer problem than the other three I mentioned?

[matmat]

gwnn, on Jul 6 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

But when was this? Do you agree that goal line decisions are a rarer problem than the other three I mentioned?

certainly less common, but, imo, more important than any of them with the possible exception of resolving dives in the box.

If FIFA does not feel it has the authority or the guts to change decisions post-facto, I think that they should still review certain types of behaviour and make it unprofitable for things like diving to happen -- maybe extended (monthsworth of games, rather than one or two matches) suspensions, or reducing the number of substitutions a team can make in the following match.

[jjbrr]

agree with matmat.

I like in American sports that tapes of the games are scrutinized by some officials after the game is over and suspensions or fines can be given out to players for calls the refs missed or for things the refs don't enforce (like a game suspension after the 7th technical foul in basketball). The Kaka red card from a few games ago is a great example of the need for someone to review the tapes, reverse the red card, and impose a penalty on the cheater on the other team.

Obviously refereeing professional sports is a very challenging profession and it's impossible to be perfect. I don't think that's a reason for the players not to be held accountable when they egregiously break the rules.

[cherdanno]

Wow there is a lot of non-sense in this thread.
- You can't disallow intentional rule breaking, without opening the can of distinguishing between intentional and unintentional rule breaking. (And if you think intentional fouls at basketball only occur in the last 2 minutes, then you apparently haven't watched basketball, or you think the defenders are just so much more likely to bump into an offensive player who is about to score from close range. And if you think free-throws restore equity, I guess you haven't heard of Shaq.) Although I have to say football has been getting better in that respect, with more yellow cards handed out - e.g. automatic cards for a foul in many situations where it is clearly beneficial (stopping a counter-attack, stopping
- I don't get the distinction between an automatic suspension for a red card and an automatic suspension for a flagrant (flagrant 2/3?), xth technical etc. in basketball--ok I know flagrants/techincals get reviewed by the NBA, but it is still an automatic suspension unless
- In cases of flagrant misconduct football players can also be sanctioned when the referee missed their action (and red cards do get reviewed to see whether a longer suspension would be adequate).
- Restoring equity? Now for every handball we want the referee to judge whether the ball would have gone in without the handball? All while everyone is complaining about refs being unable to see whether a ball has gone in? Better keep with a simple, easily enforceable rule.

Anyway, to me this whole thing is quite comparable to bidding 5D w/r over their 4S even though you know you can't make 5D, and the opponent complaining that it was unfair he didn't get to play his cold 4S contract.

Btw, whether video replays can be used in football without too losing some of the flow to the game is really a difficult quesiton. Experimenting with it at the world cup would rather idiotic, and I don't understand the criticism of FIFA in that respect.

[matmat]

cherdanno, on Jul 6 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

Btw, whether video replays can be used in football without too losing some of the flow to the game is really a difficult quesiton. Experimenting with it at the world cup would rather idiotic, and I don't understand the criticism of FIFA in that respect.

I agree with this, but I do think that if the technology for goal-line calls exists, it should be implemented above a certain level of the game (though it does need trials before it is used at the WC, of course).

As to the problem between distinguishing between intentional and unintentional rule breaking...

things that certainly deserve review are things like the kaka red card, or the incident at the last (or maybe the one before that) world cup when there was a ball kicked at a guy's shins out of the ref's view. the dude grabbed his face and started writhing in pain. the person who kicked the ball got sent off. stuff like that needs to be looked at and sanctioned, else there is incentive to break the rules.

Another thing that greatly irks me when i watch football is the number of times that an "injured" player jumps up and starts screaming to be let back onto the field when the stretcher they were being carried off on is put on the ground. I really think that there should be some sort of mandatory period, idk, maybe 60 or 90s for which this player cannot come back on. In the case of actual injuries this should be about the right time for the treatment, in the case of people faking it would be a sort of a mini-penalty.

[pooltuna]

cherdanno, on Jul 6 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

[snip]- Restoring equity? Now for every handball we want the referee to judge whether the ball would have gone in without the handball? [snip]

That's not what I meant! I meant if there is a handball an assumption of scoring without the hand block is given. The referee only has to decide if it was a handball block.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Jul 6 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

- Restoring equity? Now for every handball we want the referee to judge whether the ball would have gone in without the handball? All while everyone is complaining about refs being unable to see whether a ball has gone in? Better keep with a simple, easily enforceable rule.

Not an exact parallel, but do you think every basketball within the cylinder where there is goaltending falls in for a field goal?

[cherdanno]

So what is your football equivalent of the cylinder? And how do you distinguish between a cross and a shot?

In football, you have to score a goal to be awarded a goal. I kind of like that rule.

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Jul 6 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

So what is your football equivalent of the cylinder? And how do you distinguish between a cross and a shot?

Don't worry about it, just make the rule apply to handballs committed (intentionally?) inside the small box directly in front of the goal.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Jul 6 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

So what is your football equivalent of the cylinder? And how do you distinguish between a cross and a shot?

In football, you have to score a goal to be awarded a goal. I kind of like that rule.

Others can opine on where to draw the line.

In the end, it does seem to me that if a player uses illegal means to stop a goal that there should be rectification.

It already seems there are ways to negate a goal when the offense scores and violates certain rules, so I (and others) are only asking that the reverse be true.

2-1 now Holland.

And another offsides not called. I dont think I know of a sport where so the result is at the mercy of the competency of the refs.

3-1 - beautiful header. Maybe before I finish this post they'll score again.

[pooltuna]

cherdanno, on Jul 6 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

So what is your football equivalent of the cylinder? And how do you distinguish between a cross and a shot?

In football, you have to score a goal to be awarded a goal. I kind of like that rule.

my interpretation of that would be if it doesn't hit the net the goal doesnt count.