Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:33 pm
Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Two instances in one day. Both possibly changed the game. One wrongly given. One wrongly not.
So whatcha thinking?
So whatcha thinking?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
What was the other instance? I wanna watch it if it's on youtube.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Massive offside.Kirk Bevins wrote:What was the other instance? I wanna watch it if it's on youtube.
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
No, unless it's for EVERYTHING. And then I wouldn't want it because even video is inconclusive sometimes, and it would interrupt the flow too much. So basically no.
Haha wow, I'm the only "no". If by "technology" you mean "an amazing robo-ref that gets every decision correct", then I'm a yes. But you don't mean that, so I think you need to qualify exactly what you're talking about.
Haha wow, I'm the only "no". If by "technology" you mean "an amazing robo-ref that gets every decision correct", then I'm a yes. But you don't mean that, so I think you need to qualify exactly what you're talking about.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6361
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
The game can still carry on while the 'video ref' checks it out.Jon Corby wrote:No, unless it's for EVERYTHING. And then I wouldn't want it because even video is inconclusive sometimes, and it would interrupt the flow too much. So basically no.
Haha wow, I'm the only "no". If by "technology" you mean "an amazing robo-ref that gets every decision correct", then I'm a yes. But you don't mean that, so I think you need to qualify exactly what you're talking about.
It took 2 seconds to spot Lampards shot was a goal.
Tevez offside decision the same.(and they kindly replayed it so all players and fans could see)
I think that we either use what's available or ban replays.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Pah. That was a close offside. Without that replay I thought it was a valid goal. By the time the guy kicked it, I looked at their upfront player and there was another one ahead of him straight away - it happened very quickly. I even replayed it loads of times. It was only when they showed that line that I accepted he was offside.Michael Wallace wrote:Massive offside.Kirk Bevins wrote:What was the other instance? I wanna watch it if it's on youtube.
The England disallowed goal, however, doesn't involve looking in one place, then another with people moving...it involves looking at one object and seeing if it bounces past a stationary line.
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
:facepalm:Kirk Bevins wrote:Pah. That was a close offside. Without that replay I thought it was a valid goal. By the time the guy kicked it, I looked at their upfront player and there was another one ahead of him straight away - it happened very quickly.
There needs to be two players. Stick to Countdown mate.
Last edited by Jon Corby on Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
OK - so I don't follow the offside rule. It's a shit rule anyway.Jon Corby wrote::facepalm:Kirk Bevins wrote:Pah. That was a close offside. Without that replay I thought it was a valid goal. By the time the guy kicked it, I looked at their upfront player and there was another one ahead of him straight away - it happened very quickly.
There needs to be two players. Stick to Countdown mate.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
You'd never catch Barny offside.Kirk Bevins wrote:OK - so I don't follow the offside rule. It's a shit rule anyway.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Well a similar rule in darts (if you really want to compare it) is the exclusion zone...whilst a player is throwing, the other player is not allowed to step inside the red zone that is on the floor. This is to stop the other player getting too close as to put the thrower off, e.g. blowing, kicking, walking back from the board and bumping into the player about to throw etc.Michael Wallace wrote: You'd never catch Barny offside.
Why they can't let players stand by the goal if they want to (a la corner kicks) is beyond me. If they want to put 3 people by the goal and waste them men from the main play, then fair dos. Similarly the opposition can use 3 defenders to defend these players, as well as a goalie. I really don't see a good reason to have the offside rule.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6361
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Thats as stupid as saying, why bother with an oche.Kirk Bevins wrote:Well a similar rule in darts (if you really want to compare it) is the exclusion zone...whilst a player is throwing, the other player is not allowed to step inside the red zone that is on the floor. This is to stop the other player getting too close as to put the thrower off, e.g. blowing, kicking, walking back from the board and bumping into the player about to throw etc.Michael Wallace wrote: You'd never catch Barny offside.
Why they can't let players stand by the goal if they want to (a la corner kicks) is beyond me. If they want to put 3 people by the goal and waste them men from the main play, then fair dos. Similarly the opposition can use 3 defenders to defend these players, as well as a goalie. I really don't see a good reason to have the offside rule.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
What if you're stood outside the exclusion zone, but throwing peanuts at the oche?Kirk Bevins wrote:Well a similar rule in darts (if you really want to compare it) is the exclusion zone...whilst a player is throwing, the other player is not allowed to step inside the red zone that is on the floor. This is to stop the other player getting too close as to put the thrower off, e.g. blowing, kicking, walking back from the board and bumping into the player about to throw etc.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
The reason they have an oche is so you are throwing from a minimum of 7 foot 9 and one quarter. This is a perfectly good reason. You haven't given me a good reason for the offside rule to be in play.Marc Meakin wrote: Thats as stupid as saying, why bother with an oche.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Haha...they're only allowed water on stage but if he was throwing peanuts I'd warn him and if it continues disqualify him.Jon Corby wrote: What if you're stood outside the exclusion zone, but throwing peanuts at the oche?
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
From this article: "[the offside rule was] designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area".Kirk Bevins wrote:The reason they have an oche is so you are throwing from a minimum of 7 foot 9 and one quarter. This is a perfectly good reason. You haven't given me a good reason for the offside rule to be in play.Marc Meakin wrote: Thats as stupid as saying, why bother with an oche.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Like I said before, what is wrong with goal-hanging? They do it for corners...Michael Wallace wrote: From this article: "[the offside rule was] designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area".
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Kirk, seriously a bit of friendly advice: you make an absolute tit of yourself in football conversations. Keep out!Kirk Bevins wrote:You haven't given me a good reason for the offside rule to be in play.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Give more examples, these made me lol!Kirk Bevins wrote:Michael Wallace wrote:This is to stop the other player getting too close as to put the thrower off, e.g. blowing, kicking, walking back from the board and bumping into the player about to throw etc.[/b]
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Hang on - I ask a reasonable question and you can't reply with a reasonable answer? If it's so tittish why can't you provide a decent answer?Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk, seriously a bit of friendly advice: you make an absolute tit of yourself in football conversations. Keep out!
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
I guess I needed to be more explicit. "[the offside rule was] designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area" <- the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area is a Bad Thing (it would be a lot less interesting to watch than what we get thanks to the rule).Kirk Bevins wrote:Hang on - I ask a reasonable question and you can't reply with a reasonable answer? If it's so tittish why can't you provide a decent answer?Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk, seriously a bit of friendly advice: you make an absolute tit of yourself in football conversations. Keep out!
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Because I JUST DON'T KNOW, okay? You're right. A slightly complex rule which you don't know, don't understand and don't know the reason for, is completely unnecessary and should be abolished, and I'm just too stubborn to admit it. Happy now?Kirk Bevins wrote:Hang on - I ask a reasonable question and you can't reply with a reasonable answer? If it's so tittish why can't you provide a decent answer?Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk, seriously a bit of friendly advice: you make an absolute tit of yourself in football conversations. Keep out!
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Thanks Michael for this, but why is endless attempts at goal (or passing to a team mate near a goal) a bad thing? From what I experienced during watching England, every time the ball went towards the goal, everyone got really excited.Michael Wallace wrote: I guess I needed to be more explicit. "[the offside rule was] designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area" <- the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area is a Bad Thing (it would be a lot less interesting to watch than what we get thanks to the rule).
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
I've just read it on wikipedia to get more of an understanding about it but that's not the point. I now think you're a bit of a dick.Jon Corby wrote: A slightly complex rule which you don't know, don't understand and don't know the reason for, is completely unnecessary and should be abolished, and I'm just too stubborn to admit it. Happy now?
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Kirk you lack of interest/knowledge/whatever it is in football is hilarious!
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
I'm glad to be of value but not sure why it's hilarious. I don't like baseball or tennis, nor know too much about either but it doesn't make my lack of knowledge laughable.Ryan Taylor wrote:Kirk you lack of interest/knowledge/whatever it is in football is hilarious!
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
You're posts and facebook statuses on football always make me laugh anyway.Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm glad to be of value but not sure why it's hilarious. I don't like baseball or tennis, nor know too much about either but it doesn't make my lack of knowledge laughable.Ryan Taylor wrote:Kirk you lack of interest/knowledge/whatever it is in football is hilarious!
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Your grammar makes me laugh - now leave me alone.Ryan Taylor wrote: You're posts and facebook statuses on football always make me laugh anyway.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Shut up Phil!Kirk Bevins wrote:Your grammar makes me laugh - now leave me alone.Ryan Taylor wrote: You're posts and facebook statuses on football always make me laugh anyway.
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
It is hilarious if you offer up some pretty extreme opinions about something you know nothing about.Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm glad to be of value but not sure why it's hilarious. I don't like baseball or tennis, nor know too much about either but it doesn't make my lack of knowledge laughable.Ryan Taylor wrote:Kirk you lack of interest/knowledge/whatever it is in football is hilarious!
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
I clearly know something. I also played in the school football team (think I've mentioned this before) and I used to play football regularly. I just don't think it's a necessary rule (we certainly didn't play with that rule recreationally and it never ruined the game).Jon Corby wrote:
It is hilarious if you offer up some pretty extreme opinions about something you know nothing about.
- Andy Wilson
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
It's a simple yes when we're talking about television replays for me. Had a chat with a mate about how this would work yesterday and my basic idea would be basically not to stop play until the result came through, if it was a situation where the ball remained in play as in your boys' match. A panel watching the replay (which I assume they could call for within seconds) could have alerted the referee before the ball travelled very far, and if something crucial had happened to occur in the meantime it is simply null and void.
The main issue working against seems to be time loss. If we look back to the incident that still haunts us Irish and put a damper on what had been the lovely day when I had the pleasure of meeting some of ye guys, more time was wasted with the protests that followed than would have been wasted if the replay had have been used to assist the officials in making a decision. How can one protest against concrete evidence if you're thinking what about the French protests that would have followed? Zero tolerance towards this, leave the ref alone and get back into position or receive a card.
In addition, play acting should be zero tolerance/heavily punished also. This usually causes a stoppage anyway, but if it's too much for the referee during the game or is not clear cut enough for the panel to decide on the spot (if it is, a straight red, no messing about), it should carry a massive ban, say 6 games, should you be found guilty. With the time saved for this there'd be plenty of time saved for a second look at crucial decisions and the game would be a far far better one for the spectator, surely making soccer more popular. Frankly, if I hadn't been a passionate supporter of the game since I was 9 or 10 years old, I might have given it up (watching it) by now, as it's becoming more and more tedious. This has to be viewed as a concern for FIFA. Play acting is a cancer of the game. Sportsmanship not gamesmanship.
The main issue working against seems to be time loss. If we look back to the incident that still haunts us Irish and put a damper on what had been the lovely day when I had the pleasure of meeting some of ye guys, more time was wasted with the protests that followed than would have been wasted if the replay had have been used to assist the officials in making a decision. How can one protest against concrete evidence if you're thinking what about the French protests that would have followed? Zero tolerance towards this, leave the ref alone and get back into position or receive a card.
In addition, play acting should be zero tolerance/heavily punished also. This usually causes a stoppage anyway, but if it's too much for the referee during the game or is not clear cut enough for the panel to decide on the spot (if it is, a straight red, no messing about), it should carry a massive ban, say 6 games, should you be found guilty. With the time saved for this there'd be plenty of time saved for a second look at crucial decisions and the game would be a far far better one for the spectator, surely making soccer more popular. Frankly, if I hadn't been a passionate supporter of the game since I was 9 or 10 years old, I might have given it up (watching it) by now, as it's becoming more and more tedious. This has to be viewed as a concern for FIFA. Play acting is a cancer of the game. Sportsmanship not gamesmanship.
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Yes. Clearly.Kirk Bevins wrote:I clearly know something.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Kirk, you're well mean for making me feel small for not reading every word of every match report when I'm doing a catch up on a complicated tournament I'm running, and then you go and ask for an explanation of the offside rule which I provided about two or three weeks ago in the football thread. I hope you feel guilty cos I did a little cry last night in bed when you told me off.
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
You really are missing something with your point about corners vis-a-vis the offside rule and everyone is just letting you run with it.Kirk Bevins wrote:I clearly know something.Jon Corby wrote:
It is hilarious if you offer up some pretty extreme opinions about something you know nothing about.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
1. The referee awards a goal. Technology shows the ball did not cross the line. How do you re-start play? If he hadn't blown it might have been a tap-in.
2. If you use technology for things other than over-the-line instances, do you disallow a goal if there is any infringement of the rules by the attacking team going all the way back to the last time the ball was dead? If not, where do you draw the line?
In general I'm in favour of technology but questions like these need to be answered. I think there would be a tendency for officials not to give any marginal decisions. For example, if a linesman flags for offside wrongly he denies a goal-scoring chance. If he lets play continue wrongly, the goal can always be chalked off. So let it go for now. But you end up having to decide whether to disallow goals for things that happened ages before.
2. If you use technology for things other than over-the-line instances, do you disallow a goal if there is any infringement of the rules by the attacking team going all the way back to the last time the ball was dead? If not, where do you draw the line?
In general I'm in favour of technology but questions like these need to be answered. I think there would be a tendency for officials not to give any marginal decisions. For example, if a linesman flags for offside wrongly he denies a goal-scoring chance. If he lets play continue wrongly, the goal can always be chalked off. So let it go for now. But you end up having to decide whether to disallow goals for things that happened ages before.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
What about a challenges rule like what they have in tennis. The captain has say 3 chances in a match to go up to the referee and question a decision through use of video replays. If the challenge is successful the captain keeps his challenges. If the challenge is unsuccessful then you lose that challenge. This would eliminate the whole situation of the ref having to stop play everytime someone questions a decision. For example taking England's "goal" yesterday, captain (Gerrard?) could ask the referee to look at the replay. The ref stops play at this point consults the fourth official/video footage and finds it is a goal. A goal is awarded everything carrys on as normal. If the ball was shown not to cross the line then just restart play by giving possession to the goalkeeper from the team who hadn't challenged. Up to this point of a challenge then the referees decision would be final unless the captain would wish to have a say. Maybe sounds ludicrous but to me sounds plausible.
Last edited by Ryan Taylor on Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Well you're all bastards then and you can shove your stupid fucking game up your arses. I'm trying to say why I think the offside rule is shit and you've just resulted to pathetic childish insults.David O'Donnell wrote: You really are missing something with your point about corners vis-a-vis the offside rule and everyone is just letting you run with it.
P.s I love you Matt Morrison. xxxx
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Within seconds of Lampard's "goal", the ball was whistling past the England post. Suppose that had gone in, and suppose the Lampard effort was not as clear-cut. The referee awards Germany a goal. Gerrard, more in hope than expectation, appeals that Lampard has scored, and is delighted to be proved right. The referee awards Germany a goal. The German captain then claims that Lampard committed a foul before shooting, and he thought the referee was playing advantage. The referee checks the footage and awards a free-kick to Germany. However Gerrard, who has also been watching the footage, spots a foul on Defoe in the penalty area just prior to this. The referee agrees, and awards a penalty to England.
I don't think you're going to take the controversy out of the game with technology. If that lot had happened an England penalty is the right decision. But I can't imagine anyone thinking the sequence of events that would have to lead to it being reasonable.
I don't think you're going to take the controversy out of the game with technology. If that lot had happened an England penalty is the right decision. But I can't imagine anyone thinking the sequence of events that would have to lead to it being reasonable.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Basically you're saying you could appeal about anything at anytime. What should happen is you must challenge within a certain time limit. In tennis, you must challenge before the next point is played. You can define a length of time in which a player could challenge.David Williams wrote:Within seconds of Lampard's "goal", the ball was whistling past the England post. Suppose that had gone in, and suppose the Lampard effort was not as clear-cut. The referee awards Germany a goal. Gerrard, more in hope than expectation, appeals that Lampard has scored, and is delighted to be proved right. The referee awards Germany a goal. The German captain then claims that Lampard committed a foul before shooting, and he thought the referee was playing advantage. The referee checks the footage and awards a free-kick to Germany. However Gerrard, who has also been watching the footage, spots a foul on Defoe in the penalty area just prior to this. The referee agrees, and awards a penalty to England.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
- Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
To answer your question, Kirk:
"Although the FA's variant of offside when adopted in 1863 was predicated on a dribbling game, the variants further north – in Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Scotland, for instance – where a passing game prevailed, were designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area where a goalkeeper would battle with a handful of forwards who could legitimately stand straight in front of him."
In other words to stop 2 or 3 forwards from interfering with the keeper, you would have to station an equal number of defenders in your own six-yard box. What you would be left with is two crowded penalty areas and an almost empty midfield , with the ball just being booted from one box to the other, and a mad scramble to get at the ball. No passing, no dribbling, no real skill involved, just two sets of cloggers booting hell out of each other almost as much as booting the ball.
"Although the FA's variant of offside when adopted in 1863 was predicated on a dribbling game, the variants further north – in Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Scotland, for instance – where a passing game prevailed, were designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area where a goalkeeper would battle with a handful of forwards who could legitimately stand straight in front of him."
In other words to stop 2 or 3 forwards from interfering with the keeper, you would have to station an equal number of defenders in your own six-yard box. What you would be left with is two crowded penalty areas and an almost empty midfield , with the ball just being booted from one box to the other, and a mad scramble to get at the ball. No passing, no dribbling, no real skill involved, just two sets of cloggers booting hell out of each other almost as much as booting the ball.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
The problem is in defining that length of time. My example would have it defined as up to the next time the ball goes dead, which is the same as you say it is for tennis. That clearly wouldn't work. So what would you suggest? in my example what should have happened was an England penalty. If an appeals system and the use of technology came up with something else, what would Adrian Chiles make of that?Ryan Taylor wrote:Basically you're saying you could appeal about anything at anytime. What should happen is you must challenge within a certain time limit. In tennis, you must challenge before the next point is played. You can define a length of time in which a player could challenge.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Thanks very much for this reply. This makes sense. The next step is, if I wanted to stop what you've described, is there a nicer way of doing so than using the offside rule as reading it on wikipedia it is very clumsy and has lots of definitions open to interpretation.Liam Tiernan wrote:To answer your question, Kirk:
"Although the FA's variant of offside when adopted in 1863 was predicated on a dribbling game, the variants further north – in Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Scotland, for instance – where a passing game prevailed, were designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area where a goalkeeper would battle with a handful of forwards who could legitimately stand straight in front of him."
In other words to stop 2 or 3 forwards from interfering with the keeper, you would have to station an equal number of defenders in your own six-yard box. What you would be left with is two crowded penalty areas and an almost empty midfield , with the ball just being booted from one box to the other, and a mad scramble to get at the ball. No passing, no dribbling, no real skill involved, just two sets of cloggers booting hell out of each other almost as much as booting the ball.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
I think the offside rule is a good rule. The hard thing is juding who is offside. As far as I know, I thought the current rule was that if any part of the body that can play the ball is in front of last defender then its offside and not the "must be clear daylight" rule. I've not checked this though. So there isn't much interpretation to be done, it's just spotting it which is difficult.Kirk Bevins wrote:Thanks very much for this reply. This makes sense. The next step is, if I wanted to stop what you've described, is there a nicer way of doing so than using the offside rule as reading it on wikipedia it is very clumsy and has lots of definitions open to interpretation.Liam Tiernan wrote:To answer your question, Kirk:
"Although the FA's variant of offside when adopted in 1863 was predicated on a dribbling game, the variants further north – in Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Scotland, for instance – where a passing game prevailed, were designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area where a goalkeeper would battle with a handful of forwards who could legitimately stand straight in front of him."
In other words to stop 2 or 3 forwards from interfering with the keeper, you would have to station an equal number of defenders in your own six-yard box. What you would be left with is two crowded penalty areas and an almost empty midfield , with the ball just being booted from one box to the other, and a mad scramble to get at the ball. No passing, no dribbling, no real skill involved, just two sets of cloggers booting hell out of each other almost as much as booting the ball.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
..but it's not an offside offence and the whistle won't be blown.Ryan Taylor wrote: I think the offside rule is a good rule. The hard thing is juding who is offside. As far as I know, I thought the current rule was that if any part of the body that can play the ball is in front of last defender then its offside and not the "must be clear daylight" rule. I've not checked this though. So there isn't much interpretation to be done, it's just spotting it which is difficult.
From Wikipedia:
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a team-mate is only committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, he becomes actively involved in play by
Interfering with play
Playing or touching the ball
Interfering with an opponent
Preventing the opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the player's sight or intentionally distracting the opponent
Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position
Playing the ball after the ball has rebounded off the goal, the goalkeeper, or any opponent
I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6361
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
As the famous pundit, and somtimes racist, Ron Atkinson used to say "If he is not interferring with play, what's he doing on the pitch".
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.Kirk Bevins wrote:..but it's not an offside offence and the whistle won't be blown.Ryan Taylor wrote: I think the offside rule is a good rule. The hard thing is juding who is offside. As far as I know, I thought the current rule was that if any part of the body that can play the ball is in front of last defender then its offside and not the "must be clear daylight" rule. I've not checked this though. So there isn't much interpretation to be done, it's just spotting it which is difficult.
From Wikipedia:
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a team-mate is only committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, he becomes actively involved in play by
Interfering with play
Playing or touching the ball
Interfering with an opponent
Preventing the opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the player's sight or intentionally distracting the opponent
Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position
Playing the ball after the ball has rebounded off the goal, the goalkeeper, or any opponent
I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Kirk Bevins wrote:I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Yeah I know these things but still they shouldn't be open to interpretation. It's clear if someone is interfering with play, it's just spotting it.Kirk Bevins wrote:..but it's not an offside offence and the whistle won't be blown.Ryan Taylor wrote: I think the offside rule is a good rule. The hard thing is juding who is offside. As far as I know, I thought the current rule was that if any part of the body that can play the ball is in front of last defender then its offside and not the "must be clear daylight" rule. I've not checked this though. So there isn't much interpretation to be done, it's just spotting it which is difficult.
From Wikipedia:
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a team-mate is only committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, he becomes actively involved in play by
Interfering with play
Playing or touching the ball
Interfering with an opponent
Preventing the opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the player's sight or intentionally distracting the opponent
Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position
Playing the ball after the ball has rebounded off the goal, the goalkeeper, or any opponent
I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Haha what? It was bad enough when you were arguing from a deliberate position of ignorance, and now you're accusing everyone else of not knowing something which is widely known (and widely discussed in television commentary) on the basis that... well, what exactly? That you didn't know it? You'll be saying we don't understand induction next.Kirk Bevins wrote:I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Pah. Most of the people I ask about the offside rule describe touching the ball in an offside position. Ryan described it being in front of the last defender on the opposite side (which isn't actually an offence). I haven't heard anyone mention reason number 2 and yet some of you are quick to say you knew it. Maybe you did know it but those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.Michael Wallace wrote: Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Dude, you can stop with the amateur psychology now.Kirk Bevins wrote:Pah. Most of the people I ask about the offside rule describe touching the ball in an offside position. Ryan described it being in front of the last defender on the opposite side (which isn't actually an offence). I haven't heard anyone mention reason number 2 and yet some of you are quick to say you knew it. Maybe you did know it but those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.Michael Wallace wrote: Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Huh? I could tell you if something is offside or not. Getting back on to what you said before, I don't think there is a better way to stop goal hanging. The offside rule works fine.Kirk Bevins wrote:Pah. Most of the people I ask about the offside rule describe touching the ball in an offside position. Ryan described it being in front of the last defender on the opposite side (which isn't actually an offence). I haven't heard anyone mention reason number 2 and yet some of you are quick to say you knew it. Maybe you did know it but those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.Michael Wallace wrote: Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
I really dislike it (and I brought this up in another thread, but then I couldn't really be arsed to continue the discussion). People always talk about the appealing simplicity of football (you just need a ball and a few jumpers for goalposts), which is true until you introduce the offside rule. Of course formalising a game usually involves introducing a few complexities that aren't present in the average park game, but offside completely changes the face of the game. IAWK (I Agree With Kirk) that we should at least look at whether there's a better way to prevent the hit-and-hope game.Ryan Taylor wrote:The offside rule works fine.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Yeah but I can't think of a better way and I'm sure people must have thought long and hard about it before but the best they came up with is the offside rule. In my opinion the only trouble is if the ref/linesman can't actually spot an offside (opposed to not interpreting the laws of the game right) in which case technology could be used and should be introduced in football.Charlie Reams wrote:I really dislike it (and I brought this up in another thread, but then I couldn't really be arsed to continue the discussion). People always talk about the appealing simplicity of football (you just need a ball and a few jumpers for goalposts), which is true until you introduce the offside rule. Of course formalising a game usually involves introducing a few complexities that aren't present in the average park game, but offside completely changes the face of the game. IAWK (I Agree With Kirk) that we should at least look at whether there's a better way to prevent the hit-and-hope game.Ryan Taylor wrote:The offside rule works fine.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Everyone knows it dude, seriously.Kirk Bevins wrote:Pah. Most of the people I ask about the offside rule describe touching the ball in an offside position. Ryan described it being in front of the last defender on the opposite side (which isn't actually an offence). I haven't heard anyone mention reason number 2 and yet some of you are quick to say you knew it. Maybe you did know it but those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.Michael Wallace wrote: Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
I am still not convinced. I've asked mates before and they *always* say it's when they touch the ball etc and *nobody* has ever mentioned point 2 to me. Whether they are keeping things simple for me I'm not quite sure.Jon O'Neill wrote: Everyone knows it dude, seriously.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
It must be that. Commentators love to talk about it.Kirk Bevins wrote:I am still not convinced. I've asked mates before and they *always* say it's when they touch the ball etc and *nobody* has ever mentioned point 2 to me. Whether they are keeping things simple for me I'm not quite sure.Jon O'Neill wrote: Everyone knows it dude, seriously.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6361
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Maybe some one should invent a different code of Football.
You have Rugby League and Rugby Union, so why not do it with football.
You could introduce technology, sin bins, do away with (or modify) the offside rule.
Etc.
Btw, this started off as a flippant remark but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
You have Rugby League and Rugby Union, so why not do it with football.
You could introduce technology, sin bins, do away with (or modify) the offside rule.
Etc.
Btw, this started off as a flippant remark but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
- Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
I'm pretty sure it was Bill Shankly who said "If he is not interferring with play, he should be" As usual Atkinson was stealing ideas from better managers.Marc Meakin wrote:As the famous pundit, and somtimes racist, Ron Atkinson used to say "If he is not interferring with play, what's he doing on the pitch".
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
- Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
Re: Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?
Probably, sounds like they're still waiting for you to grasp point one fully, which you don't seem to have done judging from your earlier posts. And no , I'm not being sarcastic here, it's just that you seem to think the whole concept is much more complicated than it actually is.Kirk Bevins wrote:I am still not convinced. I've asked mates before and they *always* say it's when they touch the ball etc and *nobody* has ever mentioned point 2 to me. Whether they are keeping things simple for me I'm not quite sure.Jon O'Neill wrote: Everyone knows it dude, seriously.