Technology in Sport

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

They deliberately put their body in a position where their opponent has to make contact with them before the ball.

Is that not known as shielding the ball? Do you mean players should just let the opponent take the ball?

Originally Posted by ian@huth

They then roll and thrash about for ages, something that never used to happen years ago when there was far more physical contact in the game. This isn't sportsman like behaviour.

True, players do seem to be made of china these days, the only way to stop this is if a player is injuried and required the physio then he should leave the field of play for five minutes.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I feel that the ref should only award a foul if he thought there was intent and should penalise any player who deliberately plays to win a foul.

Unless you have a device to allow the refs to listen to players thoughts I fail to see how this would work.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Graham

Referee's decisions should, of course, be subject to "peer review" ie if other refs or the FA think someone's biased towards a particular club (which I think is usually simply a case of bad luck or sour grapes) or is making a lot of bad decisions, they should be told to sort their act out or stop refereeing, but that's not the same as querying every decision made on the *at the time* that it is made.

---------- Post added at 00:33 ---------- Previous post was at 00:31 ----------



I have no idea about the particular situation you describe, but, in general, if replays are showing that a player is persistantly engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct then they should be called before a Disciplinary Committee and be required to explain their actions and then fined, suspended, banned as appropriate to their offence.

However this is something that needs to be done *outside* the 90 minutes of the game, not *during* it.

Of course after the 90 mins is too late by then, the ref's incompetance will have affected the game.

However I will agree if you if they change the rules that if the ref has found to be have made a big mistake they then (a) have the match replayed (b) fine the ref 2 weeks wages if a professional or ban him for x amount of games.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by gazzae

As for timewasting lets do what is now happening in rugby, if there is an injury the clock stops.

Err, isn't there "time added on for stoppages" (aka "injury time")?

---------- Post added at 02:02 ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Of course after the 90 mins is too late by then, the ref's incompetance will have affected the game.

"Incompetance" is a very strong word to use in a situation like this. It is very difficult for the referee, who, remember, only gets *one* chance to see an incident, to get every decision right, especially if a player may or may not have dived or gone in unnecessarily hard on a tackle etc, so to claim that, if they don't see it, they are "incompetant" is more than a little unfair.

But if, on review, it's found that a *player's* unsportsmanlike conduct has affected the outcome of a game, they, or the team could be fined or even have points deducted.

However I will agree if you if they change the rules that if the ref has found to be have made a big mistake they then (a) have the match replayed (b) fine the ref 2 weeks wages if a professional or ban him for x amount of games.

Replaying an entire match would be an expensive process to start with, plus it could possibly cause players conflicts with other commitments (eg international games), let alone putting them at greater risk of injury and, if it were found to be necessary, should only be done in the most extreme of cases, ie not just *one* mistake, but a whole series of them.

And if refs are to be "banned" for making mistakes, there should be much greater penalties applied to cheating players!

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by Graham

Err, isn't there "time added on for stoppages" (aka "injury time")?

Yep, but is its correct though? Try it next time you watch a game, time how long play is stopped for injuries and substitutions and compare it to how long the ref adds on in injury time.

[sherer]

Originally Posted by gazzae

Yep, but is its correct though? Try it next time you watch a game, time how long play is stopped for injuries and substitutions and compare it to how long the ref adds on in injury time.

you're right they are meant to add on 30 seconds for each sub and these usually happen in the second half.. in the United v Benfica game we had both teams make 3 subs so that adds up to 3 mins but they only showed 4 mins.. does that mean the ref is saying there was only 1 actual min of injury \ stoppage time ?

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by sherer

you're right they are meant to add on 30 seconds for each sub and these usually happen in the second half.. in the United v Benfica game we had both teams make 3 subs so that adds up to 3 mins but they only showed 4 mins.. does that mean the ref is saying there was only 1 actual min of injury \ stoppage time ?

i think in this case the ref didnt want to put the man u supporters through any more torture after seeing their team play so badly

[Chrysalis]

I got no issue with large bans for players who dive.

The argument the ref only sees each incident once is not my problem, tv usage solves that but people are upset that a few secs delay will mess up the game.

Sin Bin also could be a useful idea for those borderline fouls where the ref is unsure and sinbin is a middle ground option.

[gazzae]

Just thought I'd bump this thread and show that, even with video replays, mistakes still happen. In this case the officials made the correct call on the field, but then made the wrong call when the play was reviewed after a challenge.

NFL says official should have upheld Polamalu call

NEW YORK (Jan. 16, 2006) -- The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have upheld the call, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts.

http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/9168866

[sherer]

yes mistakes will always happen but as these TV replays show cheating goes on several times in one match without it being punished

how can anyone in the FA, UEFA or FIFA watch some of these slow motion replays and not realise they are being conned.. some players get fouled and injured 20 times in each match but somehow still manages to keep playing

i've seen countless replays this season of players who have had a hand brush their face and then spend ages rolling around on the floor covering their face.. is that even a normal human reaction to be touched in the face

as i said in the footie thread i plan to setup an on-line petition in the next few weeks so that people who are fed up with all the diving and cheating can sign it then maybe the FA and UEFA might take some notice

unfortunately as long as people are watching matches on TV and going to games and it is making money i don't think anything will be done.. you only need to look at agents to see that money counts more than football these days

[bayonet]

Ok so technology in sport.........discuss

Rugby at the moment is getting ridiculous refs (especially our friends from the Southern Hemisphere) seem to stop games for Tv reviews ata moment's notice. Stop it that's your job if the ball's not under a pile of bodies have the guts to make a decision otherwise we will have 4 hour long games as well

Cricket how can you judge if a ball will swing in or out for an LBW decision just for stumpings and run outs and may be the odd catch.

Cricket seem to have a struck a good balance so far

Golf this is a different kettle of fish here as the technology issue is more to do with the equipment than the replay side of things. I don't know how much further it can go we're nearly at the stage of 350 yard drives as standard

Tennis had this issue a few years ago about the speed of serves etc but it seems to be ok. Go back to the old sets of clubs and ban the lob wedge (don't ask) and use lower compresion balls I say. Plus stop one T.Woods playing in and winning every tournament he enters and give someone else a chance

[D_Skids]

Originally Posted by bayonet

Tennis had this isue a few years ago about the speed of serves etc but it seems to be ok. Go back to the old sets of clubs and ban the lob wedge ( don't ask) and use lower compresion balls I say. Pus stop one T.Woods playing in and winning every tournment he enters and give someone else a chance

What sort of Tennis do you watch???

[bmxbandit]

Originally Posted by bayonet

Golf this is a different kettle of fish here as the technology issue is more to do with the equipment than the replay side of things. I don't know how much further it can go we're nearly at the stage of 350 yard drives as standard

Tennis had this issue a few years ago about the speed of serves etc but it seems to be ok. Go back to the old sets of clubs and ban the lob wedge (don't ask) and use lower compresion balls I say. Plus stop one T.Woods playing in and winning every tournament he enters and give someone else a chance

as someone who has done a bit of research into various golf equipment... club performance could be massively improved, but regulation keeps it in check. i think this is a good thing for the sport - it's not about who has the best equipment.

[bayonet]

Well they were talking about looking at limiting the equipment using different balls etc to slow things down as the big hitters were taking over bit like golf is now

Didn't come to much but golf gear makers are going the same way the money spent developing golf balls and golf clubs is astronomical.

Hasn't helped me much still a 16 handicap