Question for football fans

[Rave]

Right- I'll own up here, the extent of my football fandom is supporting England, and occasionally supporting whatever team makes it to the latter stages of the various European championships. So....I'm not all that au fait with the game.

So, my question is this. As I understand it, FIFA (or UEFA, whatever) can call a disciplinary committee to review the footage when a player gets sent off for a serious foul (or unsportsmanlike behaviour etc.) and can impose a ban beyond the one game suspension that you automatically get for a red card. So why can they not impose a sanction for obvious, blatant diving? Why won't they revoke the one match ban when it turns out that a player clearly didn't deserve to be sent off?

[Stewart]

It’s partly to do with the ref, and his opinion. FIFA \ UEFA are loathed to be seen to be over-ruling the refs decision, so they are unlikely to reverse the Beckham red card (to which I assume this question is connected to) so long as the ref stands by his choice.

The ref obviously thought he had to go, and although Beckham does have the right of appeal, it’s unlikely to be successful.

As for the actually decision, I think it was a bad one, but I've seen much worse. The first booking was, in my opinion (and Sven’s) a foul, and if you foul someone with your arms raised and there is contact, however light, with the other players face, you always run the risk of a booking.

As for the second, again, there was contact, it was slightly clumsy from David, although he looked to be trying to pull out, and the other bloke made a meal of it.

Overall, the two offences do not equal a red card, but you can make an (admittedly) weak case for both of them, and by the time you take into account the fact that we have TV cameras from every angle, as well as replays, slow motion, etc, and the ref has the view from where he happens to be standing at the time, a single chance to see the incident, and a few seconds to decide, then you end up with dodgy bookings and red cards all over the place.

Believe it or not, by the general standard of refs and linesmen, it wasn't that bad a decision. I've seen far, far worse.

For example, a month or so back, Everton (the team I support) were losing 2-1 to a Spanish team, with a few seconds to play, and got a corner. The ball was crossed in, and an Everton player jumped into the air, and headed the ball cleanly into the net. The ref, Pierre Luigi Collina blew for a foul and disallowed the goal.

The commentators didn’t know why, the pundits didn’t know why, I couldn’t see why, after watching the replay 20 odd times, the article writers in the newspapers the next day didn’t know why, in fact, no-one at all had the slightest idea why.

Did the goal count? Of course it did, because all that matters if the refs opinion. Everton were knocked out.

Collina was considered the best referee in the world by the way. He retired, soon after. ******.

So, in short, there is no reason why Beckham could not get this overturned, but I am sure it will not happen.

Its a funny old game.

[Rave]

It's the unwillingness to overrule the ref's decision that I can't understand. It's obvious that he has to make a decision right there on the spot with limited info and without the benefit of a video replay- so where's the shame in the governing body saying that they don't believe that the resulting suspension is justified?

I feel justified in criticising this because to an extent I'm funding these games through my TV licence (today's game was shown on the BBC), so I think it's fair enough to expect the governing bodies to enforce fair play and good sportsmanship.

[Stewart]

The general stanard of refs and linesmen, in the Premiership in particular, is laughable. Games are littered with examples of utterly unbeliveable decisions, far, far worse than a slightly dodgy red card. Considering football is, by far, the worlds most high profile sport, the situation really is a shambles.

The debate about allowing video replays for matters of fact (i.e. the ball either did cross the line or didn't, therefore, you can watch the replay) continues, and eventually that will be introduced, but for matters of opinion (was it a foul, did he mean to do it, etc), they are unlikely to be used.

We all thought refs going professional a few years back would improve things. It didn't. If this got under your skin, please don't start watching football regularly. You will implode after a few days.

[Rave]

England v. Portugal at Euro 2004 was played on my birthday- so I was drinking heavily. I'm sure you can imagine the level of profanity that ensued.

[Stewart]

As an interesting addition, the player invovled has admitted on Austrian TV that he 'made a meal of it'. I doubt it will change anything, but it just goes to show that, in general, refs haven't got a clue.

[beanbandit]

The debate about allowing video replays for matters of fact (i.e. the ball either did cross the line or didn't, therefore, you can watch the replay) continues, and eventually that will be introduced, but for matters of opinion (was it a foul, did he mean to do it, etc), they are unlikely to be used.

Video playback will not be introduced for ball crossing line. FIFA has been testing a new technology (that is years old) in the U17 comp that has just been played. There will be a sensor in the ball and in the goal mouth, when the ball crosses the line then the ref will be told either by the 4th official or by signal direct to the ref. This will be used for next years world cup.

[iranu]

The FA and FIFA do rescind red cards on appeal sometimes given video evidence. The FA on behalf of Beckham should certainly appeal because we don't know whether the penalties for red and yeallow cards i.e. match bans will be carried over from the qualifying stages to the world cup group stage.

As for the diving I don't think I've ever heard of a governing body going back and looking at video evidence and punishing the player. I wish they would because all the play acting spoils the game. Sometimes I wish we could revert to the days of "chopper" Harris. Most of todays stars certainly wouldn't hack it (no pun intended)

The problem with refereeing is that they are human and therefore make mistakes. I don't think refereeing is any worse than it used to be it's just we now have so many slo mo replays from every angle that "pundits" can then critsize at leisure. Most of them have never held a whistle let alone reffereed a match.

There is a limit to the use of technology because if you stopped the game for 2 mins for each decision the game would die. Goal mouth cameras - if they can put a camera in a cricket stump then why not 20 in a goal frame?

[Stewart]

Video playback will not be introduced for ball crossing line. FIFA has been testing a new technology (that is years old) in the U17 comp that has just been played. There will be a sensor in the ball and in the goal mouth, when the ball crosses the line then the ref will be told either by the 4th official or by signal direct to the ref. This will be used for next years world cup.

Indeed, yes. Point being, that for matters of fact, technology will be used, but for matters of opinion, like fouls, red cards and the like, its not going to happen.

So, while overall, the game should get better in that regard, you can never remove human error, and even if you could, you couldn't stop the game every 10 seconds to watch a replay.

Anyway, as I said, the main problem with the Beckham situation is that the red card wasn't that bad a descion. Both were clumsy, and we've not even mentioned the tackle that a frustrated Beckham clattered the player invovled with, a few seconds before he was sent off for the 'trip' just outside the box.

[Stewart]

Sometimes I wish we could revert to the days of "chopper" Harris. Most of todays stars certainly wouldn't hack it (no pun intended)

Erm, no. The game is better in ever way at the moment. Ok, a few more players making fools of themselves by acting as if they have been shot, but to sort that out, you improve the standard of refs, and book them for acting.

The problem with refereeing is that they are human

Debatable. Anyway, everyone doing their job is only human, doesn't mean they should avoid critisim, after yet another obviously incorrect call.

[Beninio]

On a slightly different matter, I'm not saying that the ref was right but have you tried to ref a match? When I was at school (a fair few years ago) part of my GCSE PE was to train a team and ref a match. It was extremely difficult.

[Russ]

There wont be video replays for referees to take a better look ever in football.

for the simple reason, its stupid. football is to fast paced to keep stopping it, imagine this..

Rooney scores a header past liverpool, but carragher clears it off the line and boots it up field to cisse who takes on ferdinaned and scores. after the ref checks the video replay, he sees it was actually a goal, so he cancels liverpools last minute winner at anfield and gives the game to man utd.

BUT you say, hed stop play before that!


=
when? as 11 man utd players are trying to stop liverpools attacks by demanding he check footage?

cricket and american football where they cant go 30 seconds without stopping, it works. football... it never will.

im all against any kind of technology to affect football. why? because when i score on a sunday, its a goal, when drogba scores, its a goal... actually mine was a goal but drogbas identical shot infact hit the bar and bounced this side of the line so doesnt count.