2011/2012 Season Thread

[Guest Gladstone]

And the idea with video review / banning the player is that it's an incentive not to dive in the first place. From what I hear Aluko was causing all sorts of problems for the Dunfermline defence at the weekend as Rangers most creative player, so as Alkaline says, they may miss him during his two match ban and drop points. A player also wants to play games - even if a manager tells you it's worth a ban because you effectively won that game by diving (I'm not suggesting any managers would say that...), a player would surely rather have taken the chance of creating something else later in the game without diving rather than miss a couple of games.

[Spoonie]

They might, but if they're fighting for a European place and you're fighting for league survival, their dropped points make no difference to you. In fact, you could argue that if they lose a key player, it makes them an easier opponent for someone else who is in the same position as you, which puts you at another disadvantage.

[Guest Gladstone]

They might, but if they're fighting for a European place and you're fighting for league survival, their dropped points make no difference to you. In fact, you could argue that if they lose a key player, it makes them an easier opponent for someone else who is in the same position as you, which puts you at another disadvantage.

So, are you saying that Aluko shouldn't get banned retrospectively for diving?

[Hugh_Jazz]

In the absence of video review, this is the best they can do. Although it is utterly stupid to haul the DAFC manager in front of the beaks for complaining about a decision that the SPL have accepted was wrong.

Despite Aluko getting a ban, I very much doubt this make Jim McIntyre feel any better about it. The possibility that Rangers might drop points is of fuck all consequence to Dunfermline.

[Spoonie]

So, are you saying that Aluko shouldn't get banned retrospectively for diving?

Nope, the very first line I wrote said "Good work, the more of this we see, the better"

I just think that the more things like this that we see, the stronger a case can be built for video refereeing, but in the absence of that, this is better than nothing.

[Guest Gladstone]

As much as I think video review during a match could help in certain ways I've always been a bit skeptical about the practicality. In a case like Aluko's dive at the weekend for example - what would actually happen?

Does the ref see a player hit the deck in the box and automatically blow his whistle to stop the match, so they can quickly review the video and either award a penalty, book the player for diving, or start the game with a bounce ball (because it was neither a foul nor a dive)? That obviously sounds ridiculous and people in favour of video review will always say that I'm being daft and it will never be as much of that, but if you are the referee, do you want to take the risk of getting the decision wrong without looking at the video evidence first? If he thought all that happened was a fair challenge (for example) and he didn't stop the game, but it turned out there was actually a foul and he missed it - he'll be criticised by everyone for not looking at the video.

Do we get round that by actually letting a fourth official effectively referee the game and the referee on the pitch is effectively his puppet? I.e. the referee just lets the game flow until he gets a word in his earpiece that there's been a foul or a dive or whatever, so there could be an incident at one end of the park and the opposition team quickly breaks up the park and scores. The referee has to pull the play back the 15 seconds or so to award a penalty or a free-kick or whatever to the opposing team.

It just feels as if it will totally disrupt the game because if the ability to use the video review is there, the referees will be shit scared not to use it all the time. We see how much their performance is already scrutinised and that's without them having the ability to call on technology to verify their decisions.

I think the idea of a manager having the ability to challenge one or two decisions a half could work - but it just all seems a bit dramatic / over the top. A review panel after a game to ban players for cheating (so long as it's used correctly) seems a pretty good way of dealing with it. I.e. it's an incentive not to cheat. Start handing out really meaty bans and make players think twice about doing it again.

That's for incidents like alleged diving, taking a player down etc. As far as goal-line technology is concerned - I think that could be used because it would be such a quick check that it wouldn't disrupt the game that often, and how many incidents are there likely to be in a game?

[Soda Jerk]

Bit of a risk in my opinion. Although they seem to be doing okay ant handling nutcases at the moment. I suppose he'll be decent and behave for the first 6 months at least.

I agree Tevez is a risk. I can't imagine any team paying the asking price for him. The value of his quality is completely cancelled out by him being a lunatic with a mental knobhead as an advisor. Great player, but he won't be loyal to the club. The whole point of him leaving City was to be closer to his family wasn't it? Italy isn't really any closer to Argentina. It might even be further away, so no doubt he'll be flying back to South America whenever he wants because he's homesick, and generally being a prick.

It's a shame that a player of his quality is such an arse.

[Spoonie]

How many penalty claims are there likely to be in a game?

The way I see it working is that there are certain 'reviewable plays' - penalties and has the ball crossed the line are the key ones. On an occasion when either of those happens, the ref signals to the sideline (through pressing a button on his waistband so as not to take his eyes off the play) that there's been a reviewable play. The sideline guys get straight onto the replays and as soon as the ball is no longer in active play (i.e. out of bounds or in the keeper's hands) the ref blows play dead, gets the verdict and they make the call and move on. The rules of the game aren't as complicated or as open to interpretation as some sports which do this (american football is the sport I know the best and fits as a perfect example) so I don't see the reviews being time consuming or laborious at all. And if you watch rugby, that break when everyone waits for the TMO decision is fantastic, because you know that you're gonna get a clear cut and accurate decision that will go one way or the other, and then you move on.

If there was a disputed pen or disputed ball over the line and play continued and ended with a goal, they'd scrap the review because the outcome was the same.

[Shaki]

They should review the entire history of football retrospectively and deduct all goals gained by cheating except the true classics like the Hand of God. The Pars would have one more point which wouldn't be great for the Dons but Scotland would play Montenegro in a play off and the winner would replace the Czechs in their group for Euro 2012.

[Guest Gladstone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_T%C3%A9vez

He's been a knob pretty much everywhere he's been.

[Guest Gladstone]

How many penalty claims are there likely to be in a game?

The way I see it working is that there are certain 'reviewable plays' - penalties and has the ball crossed the line are the key ones. On an occasion when either of those happens, the ref signals to the sideline (through pressing a button on his waistband so as not to take his eyes off the play) that there's been a reviewable play. The sideline guys get straight onto the replays and as soon as the ball is no longer in active play (i.e. out of bounds or in the keeper's hands) the ref blows play dead, gets the verdict and they make the call and move on. The rules of the game aren't as complicated or as open to interpretation as some sports which do this (american football is the sport I know the best and fits as a perfect example) so I don't see the reviews being time consuming or laborious at all. And if you watch rugby, that break when everyone waits for the TMO decision is fantastic, because you know that you're gonna get a clear cut and accurate decision that will go one way or the other, and then you move on.

If there was a disputed pen or disputed ball over the line and play continued and ended with a goal, they'd scrap the review because the outcome was the same.

Yeah - okay. If you stop at just penalty claims and ball over the line disputes, that might work. But people will then call for free-kicks close to the box, or what about last ditch tackles, or pretty much any tackle that can totally swing the play? What if someone is one on one with the last defender who is in the opposing half because there's just been a corner? There may not be many penalty claims or goal-line disputes in a game, but there are crucial decisions all over the park and sometimes there are many in one game. What about if someone goes over the ball with a studs up, red card offence and the ref misses it, and the team go up and score off the back of it? These are all things that can happen and have been disputed, and can all potentially turn a game on its head.

[Guest Gladstone]

So, Anelka is off to China apparently.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11668/7357304/Anelka-deal-agreed

[Spoonie]

Yeah - okay. If you stop at just penalty claims and ball over the line disputes, that might work. But people will then call for free-kicks close to the box, or what about last ditch tackles, or pretty much any tackle that can totally swing the play? What if someone is one on one with the last defender who is in the opposing half because there's just been a corner? There may not be many penalty claims or goal-line disputes in a game, but there are crucial decisions all over the park and sometimes there are many in one game. What about if someone goes over the ball with a studs up, red card offence and the ref misses it, and the team go up and score off the back of it? These are all things that can happen and have been disputed, and can all potentially turn a game on its head.

What about if a throw in goes the wrong way and the team who get it score from the resulting possession? What if there's a deflection that sends a corner/place kick the wrong way?

Here's what - not reviewable, move on. There has to be a limit to everything and that's the limit I draw here. I don't thin that any of the decisions you've mentioned, with the exception of a straight red card, are in the same league as pens and goalline disputes. Maybe offsides? The two I mentioned are examples where the outcome will most immediately lead to a goal. My point stands, you create a list of reviewable plays and stick to it and we're immediately in a better place than we are now.

[Soda Jerk]

If the referee didn't see it, then there's very little that can be done. It's all well and good managers moaning about refereeing decisions not going there way. How about you tell your players to stop trying to con the referee and piling additional pressure on what is already an exceptionally difficult job? If you took away all the cheating and deception from little cunt scabs like Suarez, the referee would have a much easier job. Instead of penning all his conectration on making sure the game abides the rules, he's keeping an exra eye on that bird-flipping, neck-biting, handballing bucktoothed little shitewipe and other players like him to make sure they aren't being an unsporting little cretin. He shouldn't have to divide his workload up in such a way, but a good number of footballers are abhorrent wankers who will win by any means necessary.

The responsibility lies with managers and the players who play the game. I say it alot, but there needs to be a harsher penalty for diving, even if the attempted dive didn't win a FK/Penalty. Stop it at the source. If a review panel on Monday morning deems a player to have dived, ban him for 10 games. Managers would clamp down on their players, and players would stop doing it. They just would. Instead, divers are somehow winning appeals when the replay shows a a clear dive with no contact. Slap a 10 game ban on serial divers like Suarez and Nani (though the latter isn't so bad for that these days) and I highly doubt they'd do it again. If they keep getting away with it, they'll keep doing it.

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

I don't know, i would love to see a punishment for diving but it is very hard to judge. I have been through on goal and being the gangly streak of piss i am got all tanged over myself and fell over with no contact. pro's should be better obviously but if you are going full pelt and someone sticks a leg out for example you may react and try to move out of the way, putting yourself off balance fall with minimal or no contact. I would say there are numerous incidents like this in a game and it is very hard to tell the difference...

[Guest Gladstone]

Jesus Christ - click here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/default.stm

When did the Celtic team get so fucking ugly??

[Eupraxia]

When did the Celtic team get so fucking ugly??

Since they appointed Neil fucking Lennon.

[Captain America]

If the referee didn't see it, then there's very little that can be done. It's all well and good managers moaning about refereeing decisions not going there way. How about you tell your players to stop trying to con the referee and piling additional pressure on what is already an exceptionally difficult job? If you took away all the cheating and deception from little cunt scabs like Suarez, the referee would have a much easier job. Instead of penning all his conectration on making sure the game abides the rules, he's keeping an exra eye on that bird-flipping, neck-biting, handballing bucktoothed little shitewipe and other players like him to make sure they aren't being an unsporting little cretin. He shouldn't have to divide his workload up in such a way, but a good number of footballers are abhorrent wankers who will win by any means necessary.

The responsibility lies with managers and the players who play the game. I say it alot, but there needs to be a harsher penalty for diving, even if the attempted dive didn't win a FK/Penalty. Stop it at the source. If a review panel on Monday morning deems a player to have dived, ban him for 10 games. Managers would clamp down on their players, and players would stop doing it. They just would. Instead, divers are somehow winning appeals when the replay shows a a clear dive with no contact. Slap a 10 game ban on serial divers like Suarez and Nani (though the latter isn't so bad for that these days) and I highly doubt they'd do it again. If they keep getting away with it, they'll keep doing it.

I think I've mentioned this before so I don't want to bang on about it too much but look at Rugby Union. Players can get cited after the game for any offence (seen or unseen by the referee) it's helped stamp out all forms of foul play. Guy got away with eye gouging someone in a ruck during a game 6 month ban, spear tackle: 12 week ban. Chris Ashton today got banned for 4 weeks for pulling another player out of bounds by his hair when he was on the ground.

Football could easily implement this with offences like diving, "headbutting" handbags and the like. It's not always the refs fault if he doesn't see it and I know if it's a punishment afterwords it doesn't help the team that lost that game because of cheating. But if the system is implemented and stuck too. As soon as players start getting banned for 8/12 weeks at a time missing crucial European/International and Domestic games. Both managers and players will wise up and we'll see far less incidents like Aluko and Suarez recently.

[Soda Jerk]

Agreed, massively. As you say, it doesn't help the team who are on the recieving end of the cheating, but once the system picks up momentum and slings serial cheaters onto the sidelies for hefty bans then the game will clean up. There's too much tolerance for twattery. Governing bodies need to throw the book hard at cheaters

[Guest Gladstone]

I agree completely with Captain America and I've said that before too.

Want to stamp out anything in the game of football and start pulling people up for it. Properly pulling them up for it. Automatic 10 match ban if proven. And this nonsense with not being able to review a referee's decisions if they've seen it should get to fuck. I can't remember the specifics but isn't there a rule that if the referee gives a free kick for something the review panel can't look at that and give retrospective yellow card or upgrade a yellow card to a red card because the referee saw it and dealt with it?

[Soda Jerk]

It's a stupid rule, and an inconsistent one, as red cards are rescinded all the time, but it never works the other way. The FA should be able to re-review any incident and punish accordingly, especially since in-game technology will never be introduced for those sorts of decisions.

It's clear we should be running things.

[Woodsinho]

I agree.

However: all this is forgetting that in most of the world this isn't seen as a problem so why would UEFA/FIFA do any rule changing? The English/Scottish FA can't muck about without the ok from above.

I'd argue (am arguing?) that it's easier for the governing bodies of other sports to make these big changes because there isn't the same kind of cultural diversity at play. The nations with the biggest say are all fairly similar minded so what they want gets done. The same can't be said for football and if it can then the British mentality is certainly in the minority.

A good example here is with the hawkeye referral system for LBW decisions in international cricket. It's used in test matches and one day internationals across the world... except when India are playing. Why is this? Most of the money in cricket comes from India and the governing body of India don't believe that hawkeye is reliable even though it's all scientifically proven to be right and therefore they get to tell the ICC to shove their referral system up their arse.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be complaining about it but it never hurts to understand why things are the way they are before demanding changes.

[Guest Gladstone]

Is cricket a sport?

[Woodsinho]

I see. I'll stick to jokes from now on. Sorry.

[Guest Gladstone]

You're right though, of course.

That was kind of playing at the back of my mind the entire time that I was imagining someone like Suarez or Nani getting a 10 match ban for diving in the Premier League. It might just encourage them to ply their trade in a country which doesn't have such harsh rules on diving. There have been so many times I've been totally frustrated by the play acting of the opposition team when Scotland is playing or Scottish teams in European matches. It is a different culture on continental Europe all together in that respect, and they seem to treat as far less of a contact sport than we do. That probably has a lot to do why we are shite at it and they're good at it, but that's a different argument all together.

I'm rambling a bit, but getting guys from Italy, Spain, Germany, etc. to agree to dish out 10 match bans for simulation is just never going to happen.