Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gazzae
I don't agree, for example if one team has a corner the ref is going to be around the box area watching the activites in the box, the corner comes in and is cleared to Ronaldo who is in space. Ronaldo then sprints up field and is tackled on the opposing teams box, now are you telling me, the 30 year old man, sprinting up the field after a very quick 19 year old is going to be in a position to decide if it was a foul or not?
|
Well if it's a problem, perhaps we need to be stricter about refs fitness levels? Or make use of a video ref?
Quote:
But my point is the same, for example the reason the was a penalty given to Arsenal at Portsmouth is because Pires dived very convincingly. From the refs angle it looked like contact was made. So in that case he wouldn't have gone to the video ref.
Or in the worst case if the refs are worried about being wrong they are going to refer every tackle in the box to the video ref.
|
You may see it as worst case, but if there really are cases where it's dificult to judge, then that strengthens the case for video evidence. the business called Arsenal Football Club undoubtedly made a financial gain as a result of that decision, seeing as it will have contributed to the season-long unbeaten record. It is not on for multi-million-pound businesses to rise or fall based on supervision techniques that have barely changed in 100 years. No other sphere of business would tolerate it.