This is the first new Topic I have started, so make allowances for my newbieness please.Due to a certain Payne in my rear, I'd like to find out the proportion of supporters who would like to see video refs introduced versus those who don't want it to happen. I'm not sure how to tally votes but would appreciate advice on the same.
Thanks.
Permalink
Permalink
Should make into a poll 
A massive no from me.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
I say yes. Have the refs mic'ed up so they can get a word from upstairs if they make a mammoth cock up.
Permalink
Permalink
Where do you draw the line there? Itd soon end up like rugby league,and no one wants that. You have it for one tiny thing,then someone makes a mistake and people say "well we're using it for this,why not for this,it wouldve saved this situation". And it snowballs.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
Only for goals and each game the teams get 1 challenge each?
Permalink
Permalink
Where do you draw the line there? Itd soon end up like
rugby league,and no one wants that. You have it for one tiny thing,then
someone makes a mistake and people say "well we're using it for
this,why not for this,it wouldve saved this situation". And it
snowballs.[/QUOTE]
My thoughts exactly. Im also saying no. Players would want it to check for offsides, who the ball went out off, if a challenge is penalty worthy, if there was a handball, if a player dived or was actually chopped... could you imagine what the EPL would turn into? Its bad enough as it is with players challenging every call the refs make, they would forever be demanding video replays of everything.
I could see someone in the Newtown stand with a camcorder running down onto the pitch to prove the ref wrong...
[QUOTE=HarryPeters]Only for goals and each game the teams get 1 challenge each?
My thoughts exactly. Im also saying no. Players would want it to check for offsides, who the ball went out off, if a challenge is penalty worthy, if there was a handball, if a player dived or was actually chopped... could you imagine what the EPL would turn into? Its bad enough as it is with players challenging every call the refs make, they would forever be demanding video replays of everything.
I could see someone in the Newtown stand with a camcorder running down onto the pitch to prove the ref wrong...
[QUOTE=HarryPeters]Only for goals and each game the teams get 1 challenge each?
Ive been watching a bit of hockey lately on sky, and these 'referrals' kill the game entirely. Same concept, each team gets a referral, if they are successful, they keep it to use again. If they are not, they lose it for the entire match. Then if something blatantly obvious is missed again by the ref for whatever reason... tough, it doesnt get awarded anyway.
Hockey should flow like football, but sadly this is no longer the case. Not at the top flight anyway
Permalink
Permalink
The problem is, that football doesn't have as many stops as league, rugby and cricket have. So for those sport it is easy to stop the gaem, check, and then have an obviously restart of play (ie. scrum).
Football however, if some incident happened, and the ball didn't go out of play, how does the ref stop play to check. Does he have to wait until the ball goes out (minutes later perhaps), or will be stop play there and then, and restart using a drop ball. I just don't think it would work.
I'm much more open to the idea of have a 4th and 5th offical don't each end of the field.
Permalink
Permalink
ABSOLUTELY NO.
2ndBest is right. It would destroy the flow of the game.
Additional referees, sure why not.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Yeah even though its just bitten us badly, I don't think it really fits. More refs/ better ones is the way to go.
Permalink
Permalink
Yeah even though its just bitten us badly, I don't think it really fits. More refs/ better ones is the way to go.
This.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
2nd best sums up my opinion perfectly
Permalink
Permalink
what about a chip in the ball to indicate goals? like a let in tennis or a goal in ice hockey it just sends a beep/buzz to the ref
Permalink
Permalink
what about a chip in the ball to indicate goals? like a let in tennis or a goal in ice hockey it just sends a beep/buzz to the ref
Err, what is the title of this thread?
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
If people are worried about natural flow being stopped. Then surely if the video ref was used to confirm the legitimate nature of the goal is OK because the shot would have been taken and the ball is out of bounds. So instead of the players getting into the refs faces and wasting any time, then all they are doing is waiting on the video ref. Can't be much time difference to worry about flow. There is always time wasted on crucial moments on the game so why can't it be used positively on VR rather than negatively on in the ref's face??
Any potential penalty fouls are immediately seen on the video and there is always players getting heated that is time wasted anyway. So in those moments, the video is obviously best to used as time is wasted anyway.
I don't believe we need team referrals and it is always up to the referees discretion when to use it so the emphasis goes back to the field referee as the man in control. I see it only as aid. The best referees will know when to use it and manage how he does the game. So some refs will use it less or not at all than others, but I think that they should be capable to decide whether the video is need or not at the elite levels leagues football.
There are plenty of coaches that are calling out for some fairness in video replay. So I can't see why the officials can't manage the amount of referrals themselves. The best referees wouldn't use it as much and they would be rewarded for how appropriately they manage the system.
Any potential penalty fouls are immediately seen on the video and there is always players getting heated that is time wasted anyway. So in those moments, the video is obviously best to used as time is wasted anyway.
I don't believe we need team referrals and it is always up to the referees discretion when to use it so the emphasis goes back to the field referee as the man in control. I see it only as aid. The best referees will know when to use it and manage how he does the game. So some refs will use it less or not at all than others, but I think that they should be capable to decide whether the video is need or not at the elite levels leagues football.
There are plenty of coaches that are calling out for some fairness in video replay. So I can't see why the officials can't manage the amount of referrals themselves. The best referees wouldn't use it as much and they would be rewarded for how appropriately they manage the system.
Permalink
Permalink
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Permalink
Permalink
what about a chip in the ball to indicate goals? like a let in tennis or a goal in ice hockey it just sends a beep/buzz to the ref
Err, what is the title of this thread?
well i meant instead of going with video refs
Permalink
Permalink
That still doesn't stop Payne's illegal handball act for the second goal. Surely it is stimulation that bypass the need for penalty kick and awards the goal straightway.
Permalink
Permalink
If people are worried about natural flow being stopped. Then surely if the video ref was used to confirm the legitimate nature of the goal is OK because the shot would have been taken and the ball is out of bounds. So instead of the players getting into the refs faces and wasting any time, then all they are doing is waiting on the video ref. Can't be much time difference to worry about flow. There is always time wasted on crucial moments on the game so why can't it be used positively on VR rather than negatively on in the ref's face??
Any potential penalty fouls are immediately seen on the video and there is always players getting heated that is time wasted anyway. So in those moments, the video is obviously best to used as time is wasted anyway.
I don't believe we need team referrals and it is always up to the referees discretion when to use it so the emphasis goes back to the field referee as the man in control. I see it only as aid. The best referees will know when to use it and manage how he does the game. So some refs will use it less or not at all than others, but I think that they should be capable to decide whether the video is need or not at the elite levels leagues football.
There are plenty of coaches that are calling out for some fairness in video replay. So I can't see why the officials can't manage the amount of referrals themselves. The best referees wouldn't use it as much and they would be rewarded for how appropriately they manage the system.
Any potential penalty fouls are immediately seen on the video and there is always players getting heated that is time wasted anyway. So in those moments, the video is obviously best to used as time is wasted anyway.
I don't believe we need team referrals and it is always up to the referees discretion when to use it so the emphasis goes back to the field referee as the man in control. I see it only as aid. The best referees will know when to use it and manage how he does the game. So some refs will use it less or not at all than others, but I think that they should be capable to decide whether the video is need or not at the elite levels leagues football.
There are plenty of coaches that are calling out for some fairness in video replay. So I can't see why the officials can't manage the amount of referrals themselves. The best referees wouldn't use it as much and they would be rewarded for how appropriately they manage the system.
i imagine alot of the times when a goal may not be awarded the ball is still in play e.g cleared from in the goal or bounced of underside of bar then back into play
Permalink
Permalink
what about a chip in the ball to indicate goals? like a let in tennis or a goal in ice hockey it just sends a beep/buzz to the ref
Err, what is the title of this thread?
well i meant instead of going with video refs
Don't see a problem with it except that so far nobody has been able to come up with an accurate system. FIFA trialled the best one and it still made mistakes so was abandonned.
I have no doubt it will get there though and if it's real time then happy days. Likewise for ball in and out of play.
Not on topic though.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Then surely if the video ref was used to confirm the legitimate nature of the goal is OK because the shot would have been taken and the ball is out of bounds. .[/QUOTE]
Again,where does it stop. The ball goes over the line,so the video ref calls it a goal,the defending team then complains it was offside in the first place,people then go on and on until they concede that since we use it for goal line,then we may as well for earlier instances. Rugby league being the prime example (and hockey apparently),and also cricket...Used to just be runouts,then people start saying we are using the technology anyway,so it is inconsistent to use it for one thing and not another,expanding the scope suddenly makes sense.
[QUOTE=AllWhitebelievr]
I don't believe we need team referrals and it is always up to the referees discretion when to use it so the emphasis goes back to the field referee as the man in control. I see it only as aid. The best referees will know when to use it and manage how he does the game. So some refs will use it less or not at all than others, but I think that they should be capable to decide whether the video is need or not at the elite levels leagues football.
I don't believe we need team referrals and it is always up to the referees discretion when to use it so the emphasis goes back to the field referee as the man in control. I see it only as aid. The best referees will know when to use it and manage how he does the game. So some refs will use it less or not at all than others, but I think that they should be capable to decide whether the video is need or not at the elite levels leagues football.
Again,a matter of consistency. If one referee uses it less,and misses something,but another referee uses it all the time and gets them all right,then how is that more consistent than never using it and just having it down to human error? Id rather a consistent decision than a correct one.
Video referees throw up just as much controversy as human error through inconsistency).At least with human error it is and always has been part of the game for a call to not go your way,right from junior and grassroots level. It creates a healthy debate after the game,and is one of the good things about the game in fact.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
Tegal 100% spot on.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
The problem is, that football doesn't have as many stops as league, rugby and cricket have. So for those sport it is easy to stop the gaem, check, and then have an obviously restart of play (ie. scrum).
Football however, if some incident happened, and the ball didn't go out of play, how does the ref stop play to check. Does he have to wait until the ball goes out (minutes later perhaps), or will be stop play there and then, and restart using a drop ball. I just don't think it would work.
I'm much more open to the idea of have a 4th and 5th offical don't each end of the field.
Imagine if he had to wait 3 minutes before a stop in play and there was a goal and it had to be dragged right the way back so a previous indescretion could be penalised and the goal disallowed. There'd be a riot.
Summed it up well 2ndbest. I'm not a fan of video technology (or, for that matter, journalists of other sports on the internet who say football need it when they clearly don't fully understand it with regards to football). As mentioned in the quote, the idea of an extra official or two isn't bad, and a chip in the ball so as to determine whether the ball has crossed the line would also be a potentially good move.
Permalink
Permalink
Tegal. . It is not obvious that if it was offside, that the goal would be declared as illegitimate through video replay. It would have sort there and then. The video referee will see through the phase of play that all things were ticked in the right boxes.
You worry about consistency but not all games are consistent. Referees are still accountable. However, isn't obvious that there are moments in the game that will begs the question of having an another look. Incidents that are very crucial to the outcome, most namely the legitimate of the goals. Moments that has clashes, which has two very strong opinions of the incident. If it is warranted to be investigated immediately, then the referee should be able to call the second look, especially if he has not seen it. Whether it warrants the ball to be go out or stop play then and there and restart by drop ball or a sporting kick to the opponent is up to the managing abilities of the ref. Surely he can make the call as such.
I honestly think that people are reading too much negatively into the use of VR in the problem of stopping the flow of the game but yet I am only saying the use of it would not do that if we struck the right balance and the balance comes down to the man in the middle, the referee. And there is always be mistakes, but the point is to reduce the mistakes, give the referee access to making the right call and prevent ridiculous theatrical claims by players to ensure good sportsmanship and all this can be done by a good balance of calls by the referee.
I see no real reason not to even trial it and that it obviously changes how referees manage the game at the higher levels. I am sure that a set of criterias that the top referees will debate about it behind closed doors before giving it a go.
As time goes on, it is not the matter of should we or should not be, but of when.
You worry about consistency but not all games are consistent. Referees are still accountable. However, isn't obvious that there are moments in the game that will begs the question of having an another look. Incidents that are very crucial to the outcome, most namely the legitimate of the goals. Moments that has clashes, which has two very strong opinions of the incident. If it is warranted to be investigated immediately, then the referee should be able to call the second look, especially if he has not seen it. Whether it warrants the ball to be go out or stop play then and there and restart by drop ball or a sporting kick to the opponent is up to the managing abilities of the ref. Surely he can make the call as such.
I honestly think that people are reading too much negatively into the use of VR in the problem of stopping the flow of the game but yet I am only saying the use of it would not do that if we struck the right balance and the balance comes down to the man in the middle, the referee. And there is always be mistakes, but the point is to reduce the mistakes, give the referee access to making the right call and prevent ridiculous theatrical claims by players to ensure good sportsmanship and all this can be done by a good balance of calls by the referee.
I see no real reason not to even trial it and that it obviously changes how referees manage the game at the higher levels. I am sure that a set of criterias that the top referees will debate about it behind closed doors before giving it a go.
As time goes on, it is not the matter of should we or should not be, but of when.
Permalink
Permalink
If people are worried about natural flow being stopped. Then surely if the video ref was used to confirm the legitimate nature of the goal is OK because the shot would have been taken and the ball is out of bounds. So instead of the players getting into the refs faces and wasting any time, then all they are doing is waiting on the video ref. Can't be much time difference to worry about flow. There is always time wasted on crucial moments on the game so why can't it be used positively on VR rather than negatively on in the ref's face??
Any potential penalty fouls are immediately seen on the video and there is always players getting heated that is time wasted anyway. So in those moments, the video is obviously best to used as time is wasted anyway.
I don't believe we need team referrals and it is always up to the referees discretion when to use it so the emphasis goes back to the field referee as the man in control. I see it only as aid. The best referees will know when to use it and manage how he does the game. So some refs will use it less or not at all than others, but I think that they should be capable to decide whether the video is need or not at the elite levels leagues football.
There are plenty of coaches that are calling out for some fairness in video replay. So I can't see why the officials can't manage the amount of referrals themselves. The best referees wouldn't use it as much and they would be rewarded for how appropriately they manage the system.
�i imagine alot of the times when a goal may not be awarded the ball is still in play e.g cleared from in the goal or bounced of underside of bar then back into play
Any potential penalty fouls are immediately seen on the video and there is always players getting heated that is time wasted anyway. So in those moments, the video is obviously best to used as time is wasted anyway.
I don't believe we need team referrals and it is always up to the referees discretion when to use it so the emphasis goes back to the field referee as the man in control. I see it only as aid. The best referees will know when to use it and manage how he does the game. So some refs will use it less or not at all than others, but I think that they should be capable to decide whether the video is need or not at the elite levels leagues football.
There are plenty of coaches that are calling out for some fairness in video replay. So I can't see why the officials can't manage the amount of referrals themselves. The best referees wouldn't use it as much and they would be rewarded for how appropriately they manage the system.
It is up to the ref to make the call. In all cases concerning possible goals, the both team will make an appeal anyway claiming both ways and the ball is cleared away, so I see no problems in making the call to the VR. There can be a rule sorted for this that everyone can agree on as to where the ball can start from at that point. Again, you all worry too much.
Permalink
Permalink
Thank god you're not in charge is all I can say.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
When it changes to video refereeing, which it probably will eventually in the future, football as we know it will change considerably. Good on Blatter for sticking to his guns and may all future presidents of FIFA hold onto his view of it.
Permalink
Permalink
instead of video refs taking blame away from the refs just make them more accountable when they do f**k up
Permalink
Permalink
instead of video refs taking blame away from the refs just make them more accountable when they do f**k up
More of this:
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
instead of video refs taking blame away from the refs just make them more accountable when they do f**k up
More of this:
The A-League would run out of referees in Round 2!
"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009
Permalink
Permalink
I dont want video refs stopping and pulling the beautiful game apart. The best thing about football is that it flows: you can go from desperate defense to attack in a matter of seconds. Play can be amazingly continuous, show me that in another game with video refs.
There will always be a human element in sport (until the robots take over), I am prepared to live with that, it works for us some times, and against us on others. This (Sydney) was the latter, but our turn will come.
hepatitis2010-03-16 17:54:43
There will always be a human element in sport (until the robots take over), I am prepared to live with that, it works for us some times, and against us on others. This (Sydney) was the latter, but our turn will come.
hepatitis2010-03-16 17:54:43
Permalink
Permalink
Post match review of incidents noted by the referee e.g Eduardo's dive, Henry's handball. Payne's blatant cheating. systematic review and appropriate sanctions.
Def no videop ref sh*t during the game. FFS it's not egg chasing - 'Lets take 2 minutes to determine if it's a try, then another two minutes of farting around while they kick the conversion'' Bollocks to that.
BlattersBalls2010-03-16 21:56:41
Permalink
Permalink
Thanks to all contributors, I have been swept away in a mini Tsunami of fors and againsts...Tegal says we should make it into a poll..how do we do that? My own personal opinion is that vid ref.would be worth a trial, and that one appeal per team per match would be the limit, irrespective of whether the appeal was successful or not, but I love the game warts and all, so even if video refs never eventuates I will still buy my season ticket(s) I'm hoping Mr Payne will make a contribution to this thread, should I not hold my breath?
Permalink
Permalink
When it changes to video refereeing, which it probably will eventually in the future, football as we know it will change considerably.� Good on Blatter for sticking to his guns and may all future presidents of FIFA hold onto his view of it.
We all know that refs make mistakes but I would rather put up with that than having poxy replays from 3rd refs etc.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
Football doesn't need video technology. The great part about the game is that it's simple. Start to complicate things by introducing video refs and things start getting complicated unessacarily.
Ref's screwing up or making controversial decisions is a much a part of football as anything else these days. Wouldn't be the same without 'em...
Permalink
Permalink
The first thing the FFA need to do is make referees professional for the A League. They also need to make them more accountable for their decisions. Good games being rewarded and bad games being punished. Referees should also be allowed to be interviewed after the game. They may have seen something from their angle that the cameras didn't catch and one could get a better understanding of their choice of decision.
Video calls on contenscious issues such as "Did the ball cross the line?" or Paynes handball have some merit especially when caught up in the emotion of the game but the reality is, it would take away that human factor. Of course referees make mistakes, some of them are human after all. Whether or not that particular referee or linesman learn from it is another thing.
I reckon it takes a lot of courage to be a referee, you will never make everyone happy but you give it your best - well I hope they do. At the end of the day so long as match official aspire to continually improve their standards.
Lonegunmen2010-03-17 11:56:00Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
http://sport.msn.co.nz/blog.aspx?blogentryid=614303&showcomments=true
I think that we can reduce the number of bad decisions, especially if you think about the livelihood of many clubs and players.
It seems that it has to take a handball that leads to a crucial goal in the actual World Cup Final before FIFA decides to do anything. If Ireland cannot get any justice, then I can only think that the referee gets bribed, and France loses to a handball goal in the final. I bet there are a few people who will take the advantage of fixing the game to suit themselves because without technology in place, we will see more bribed officials etc who will take advantage of this in the future if if hasn't been done already. I think that there are plenty of suspected on-field officials that has been bribed already taking advantage. It would be crazy not to think that it is not happening already.
Lets face it, football is such a money spinner and too much is riding on it so it is easy for FIFA to turn the back on technology just in case it help expose how bloody corrupt the whole system actually is. It is, of course my opinion.
I believe that you need to get the right decisions by the officials if you like to enhance good sportsmanship or everyone will push it the line and frankly there are plenty of disrespect aimed at the officials. If one of the top former and most experienced referee in UK is calling for the technology, you have to sit up, listen and consider why.AllWhitebelievr2010-03-17 13:20:54
Football needs goal-line technology
10/03/2010 9:12:00 AM, Lynn McConnell It almost defies belief that the people entrusted with governing the world's largest sport should refuse to implement technology that would minimise mistakes in their game, says Lynn McConnell, senior editor of Sportal.co.nz.
In case you missed it, FIFA, the governing body of football, has decided that it will not pursue the use of goal-line technology and decisions will be left to match officials.
But given the amount of money thrown around by clubs all around the world to secure the best players to win the best competitions, it would seem only natural that all those involved in contributing their dollar, mark, pound, euro or peso to the game would want to see every possible incentive being made to secure the right decisions.
A wrong decision in awarding a goal would seem to be just about the most obvious point of frustration for all concerned, players, fans, media outlets and owners. But it would appear the administrators are unconvinced of the need to make every possible effort to get the right decisions.
How many times are teams to be frustrated by wrong calls? How long can fans contain themselves over obvious wrongdoing? How long before a World Cup final is possibly decided on a decision that could have been correct had technology been used?
If it is good enough for cricket to work out a system to determine contentious leg-before-wicket decisions, why can't football follow suit and spend the money involved in devising a fail-safe system for controversial calls at goal time. Perhaps it is based on arrogance that the game itself is beyond the need for technical aids.
However, criticism of poor calls demonstrated in television replays would suggest that is a legitimate concern. It can't be due to ignorance because the facts are so often available from replays.
If football officialdom is happy with the sight of Thierry Henry cheating to deny Ireland a chance to play in the World Cup finals in South Africa, then those officials have some serious issues to confront in relation to their leadership in the game.
What has football to fear from adopting 21st century aids to ensure correct decisions are made? What power is being taken from the game by having television adjudication?
Or, more importantly, what is it going to take for football to appreciate that its own best interests demand a more reasonable understanding of what its great public wants? Hopefully that doesn't result in a response somewhere unbecoming of the game, its fans, its officials and its administrators.
But those same administrators have left the window of opportunity open and they must be culpable in any future incidents as a result of the decision made at the weekend.
Lynn McConnell is the senior editor at sportal.co.nz
10/03/2010 9:12:00 AM, Lynn McConnell It almost defies belief that the people entrusted with governing the world's largest sport should refuse to implement technology that would minimise mistakes in their game, says Lynn McConnell, senior editor of Sportal.co.nz.
In case you missed it, FIFA, the governing body of football, has decided that it will not pursue the use of goal-line technology and decisions will be left to match officials.
But given the amount of money thrown around by clubs all around the world to secure the best players to win the best competitions, it would seem only natural that all those involved in contributing their dollar, mark, pound, euro or peso to the game would want to see every possible incentive being made to secure the right decisions.
A wrong decision in awarding a goal would seem to be just about the most obvious point of frustration for all concerned, players, fans, media outlets and owners. But it would appear the administrators are unconvinced of the need to make every possible effort to get the right decisions.
How many times are teams to be frustrated by wrong calls? How long can fans contain themselves over obvious wrongdoing? How long before a World Cup final is possibly decided on a decision that could have been correct had technology been used?
If it is good enough for cricket to work out a system to determine contentious leg-before-wicket decisions, why can't football follow suit and spend the money involved in devising a fail-safe system for controversial calls at goal time. Perhaps it is based on arrogance that the game itself is beyond the need for technical aids.
However, criticism of poor calls demonstrated in television replays would suggest that is a legitimate concern. It can't be due to ignorance because the facts are so often available from replays.
If football officialdom is happy with the sight of Thierry Henry cheating to deny Ireland a chance to play in the World Cup finals in South Africa, then those officials have some serious issues to confront in relation to their leadership in the game.
What has football to fear from adopting 21st century aids to ensure correct decisions are made? What power is being taken from the game by having television adjudication?
Or, more importantly, what is it going to take for football to appreciate that its own best interests demand a more reasonable understanding of what its great public wants? Hopefully that doesn't result in a response somewhere unbecoming of the game, its fans, its officials and its administrators.
But those same administrators have left the window of opportunity open and they must be culpable in any future incidents as a result of the decision made at the weekend.
Lynn McConnell is the senior editor at sportal.co.nz
I think that we can reduce the number of bad decisions, especially if you think about the livelihood of many clubs and players.
It seems that it has to take a handball that leads to a crucial goal in the actual World Cup Final before FIFA decides to do anything. If Ireland cannot get any justice, then I can only think that the referee gets bribed, and France loses to a handball goal in the final. I bet there are a few people who will take the advantage of fixing the game to suit themselves because without technology in place, we will see more bribed officials etc who will take advantage of this in the future if if hasn't been done already. I think that there are plenty of suspected on-field officials that has been bribed already taking advantage. It would be crazy not to think that it is not happening already.
Lets face it, football is such a money spinner and too much is riding on it so it is easy for FIFA to turn the back on technology just in case it help expose how bloody corrupt the whole system actually is. It is, of course my opinion.
I believe that you need to get the right decisions by the officials if you like to enhance good sportsmanship or everyone will push it the line and frankly there are plenty of disrespect aimed at the officials. If one of the top former and most experienced referee in UK is calling for the technology, you have to sit up, listen and consider why.AllWhitebelievr2010-03-17 13:20:54
Permalink
Permalink