Quick footie question

[Noodley]

I just flicked on the TV to see what the score was in the Liverpool game and spotted 2 x 'extra officals'(?), poncing about near the goal line. They did not appear to be serving any function, no sign of flags or any signals to the ref.

Anyone know who they are/what they are there for? I'm sure I'd have found out if I had been watching/listening earlier...

 

[accountantpete]

It's a new experiment only for the Eufa cup games this year - they are supposed to help the ref spot infringements in the penalty area.

 

[Noodley]

Thanks.

 

[on the road]

Also to help determin whether a ball's crossed the line.

 

[Alun]

Also to help determin whether a ball's crossed the line.

And they had to wait 80 mins for that !!

 

[Vapin' Joe]

They seemed to spend half their time on the pitch. When I first saw them I thought it was some fans running on.

 

[shippers]

Still missed the foul on Mascherano on the edge of the box!
Equally gave Gerrard the softest free kick ever.

I never say them signal anything- but how irritating for the keeper, having these extra gits in the edge of your vision.

 

[snakehips]

It's a new experiment only for the Eufa cup games this year - they are supposed to help the ref spot infringements in the penalty area.

Yep they are there as an alternative to a system that would enable officials to make correct decisions , namely the video replays that the rest of us enjoy with major matches these days.

Snake

My Library

 

[Debian]

Yep they are there as an alternative to a system that would enable officials to make correct decisions , namely the video replays that the rest of us enjoy with major matches these days.

Snake

OT, sorry but this is what's spoiling all sorts of games. Cricket at the top level has already been ruined by decisions being taken out of the hands of the on-field officials and into the hands of various third / fourth umpires, video replay, hawkeye, etc. Cricket is a human game with human foibles - it's part of what makes it interesting. Errors in decision making tend to even out over the course of a game anyway. It spoils the flow of the game as well. It also introduces a lack of respect for the officials because their decision can now be questioned.

It would also ruin football. It would become like that abortion of a "game" american "football" with interuptions every five minutes. First it'll be for "did the ball cross the goal line" decisions. Then it'll be "was that a throw in or not"? Then who got the last touch and was it a corner or goal kick? Then it'll be "was he offside or not?" And before you know it it'll be a referal and a video replay for every single decision.

In football there's no need for anything more than a ref and two linesmen and ban any sort of backchat or disent by the players, a bit like the situation in rugby. Ref's decision should be final. So should the (on-field) umpire's decision be final on the cricket field. It is actually still written in the Laws of Cricket that the umpires decision is final but at the top level it's not. Just like the direction football is moving.

 

[rich p]

I know you have a vested interest Debian but surely the run out camera has been a worthy addition. It is almost impossible to correctly call a close run out with the naked eye as I have proved on many occasion!

 

[Debian]

I know you have a vested interest Debian but surely the run out camera has been a worthy addition. It is almost impossible to correctly call a close run out with the naked eye as I have proved on many occasion!

No, IMHO it's not a worthy addition at all.

If a run out decision is that tight then the rule is that the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.

Using any sort of replay technology a) spoils the flow of the game and reduces the perceived authority of the umpire - it simply encourages more general disent.

 

[rich p]

No, IMHO it's not a worthy addition at all.

If a run out decision is that tight then the rule is that the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.

Using any sort of replay technology a) spoils the flow of the game and reduces the perceived authority of the umpire - it simply encourages more general disent.

I would agree except that the run outs umpires were getting wrong, weren't even close but I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one!

I suspect we're in full agreement over the referral system though

p.s. No need to be humble, no-one else is on here!

 

[Debian]

I would agree except that the run outs umpires were getting wrong, weren't even close but I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one!

I suspect we're in full agreement over the referral system though

p.s. No need to be humble, no-one else is on here!

According to my annual league marks, as given by the skippers of the teams I've umpired, almost all my line decisions are good (stumpings, run-outs and no-balls) so I'm confident on that one.

There, see? A bit less humble!

 

[on the road]

Maybe if referees were better trained then there might not be a need for 5th and 6th officials or for video evidence, refereeing standards seemed to have dropped this season.