Rob Styles once again shows why he shouldn't be allowed to officiate

[twistedAM]

the ref made a mistake.

get over it. on first look it looked like malouda was tripped by the defender. on video replay it was clear he wasn't.

the guy didn't do it deliberately. it's part of the game.

like scott parker jumping over newcastle's goal against us last season, or dailly being shoved in the back as fulham scored their equaliser.

gives the media something to write about I suppose.

word ...the biggger blunder of the weekend was Healy's goal not being given but Sanchez isn't giving it the big one like about it like Lardy Benitez and that decision could be just as if not more crucial at the end of the season than the Chelsea penalty

surely for that kind of goal line thing they could easily deploy hawkeye or whatever they use at Wimbledon??

 

[Jazzz]

You can't have the game stopped every time there's a possible penalty (and it would be stopped a lot - look at cricket where they refer anything even vaguely near to a runout just to be on the safe side.)

No-one supporting the attacking team would mind, would they?

 

[tommers]

word ...the biggger blunder of the weekend was Healy's goal not being given but Sanchez isn't giving it the big one like about it like Lardy Benitez and that decision could be just as if not more crucial at the end of the season than the Chelsea penalty

surely for that kind of goal line thing they could easily deploy hawkeye or whatever they use at Wimbledon??

yeah. that was miles over. I live with a boro fan and even she said it was. in fact didn't southgate say something along the lines of "you get some and you don't get others"?

keith hackett was on sky today saying hawkeye is currently being tested for football matches. be at least a year before it comes in though....

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Oh come on! Please don't say you really wish to turn back the clock to the days before video umpiring in cricket?

Jazzz, is it too much to ask you to take some notice of what I've said and what I haven't?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

No-one supporting the attacking team would mind, would they?

Er, what?

Everyone would mind when they went home and the game had been stopped 10 times. It's a shit idea.

 

[strung out]

Oh come on! Please don't say you really wish to turn back the clock to the days before video umpiring in cricket? Batsmen would routinely be given not out run out yards short of the crease. Fielders would get away with cheat catches off bump balls. Horrible!
If there is still controversy over such decisions, it's a much better class of controversy. Here's a point of law that commentators often remind us of these days...

"On the line IS OUT"

... except that it wasn't in the old days was it, and this was never said! 'On the line' invariably meant that the umpire wouldn't have a fucking clue whether it was out or not so the batsman would always keep his wicket!

You know those sharp stumpings where keepers whisk off the bails while the batsman lifts his foot up for a split second? Well, they never existed before did they?

Really, video has been vast improvement in cricket umpiring.

erm, doesn't on the line mean the batsman is given in?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

29.1

erm, doesn't on the line mean the batsman is given in?

No

 

[strung out]

ah, ok then

 

[Jazzz]

Jazzz, is it too much to ask you to take some notice of what I've said and what I haven't?

well if you said something sensible...

 

[Jazzz]

Er, what?

Everyone would mind when they went home and the game had been stopped 10 times. It's a shit idea.

okay, well try this. The game may continue as normal while the refs in the video room look over the action. If they decide that a penalty infringement has gone unpunished, then that's communicated to the field, the ref blows and play stops for the penalty and disciplining of offences.

 

[butchersapron]

okay, well try this. The game continues as normal while the refs in the video room look over the action. If they decide that a penalty infringement has gone unpunished, then that's communicated to the field, the ref blows and play stops for the penalty and disciplining of offences.

What, 2 minutes later? Dream on.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Well, not really. Typically in RL there'll be a video replay in a situation where the ball would have been dead anyway, but in football it's just as likely to still be in play (e.g. if it's hit the bar, bounced down and then been cleared).

That's slightly disingenuous, as I'm sure you're aware. Yes, they go to the video ref at the point of the break in play but there's not a problem with then checking for penalties, obstruction, etc from earlier on in the play. All the statistics demonstrate that the ball is active and in play for much more of a rugby league match than a football match and the video ref decisions are probably the only major hindrance on that, yet it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the game as I see it.

Top flight football games seem to be able to bear 5 minutes stoppages whilst the over-hyped and over-paid primadonnas roll all over the turf, it appears to bear the referee's decision being questioned verbally in a forceful and perjorative manner for minutes at a time, it doesn't have an issue with teams running down the clock by camping out in the corners of the pitch for 5 minutes at the end of games.

Are you seriously trying to claim that it wouldn't be able to incorporate the useage of a fourth official in the stands, with instant replay and miked up to the main ref as already happens? Lower league football is a different kettle of fish (and I'm sure that's what your article concentrated on iirc) but for major games, there are already so many breaks in play that I really don't think independent arbitration of this nature would be a bad thing. It might even help to reduce the amount of blatant cheating that is occuring presently in such climes.

 

[JTG]

Lower league football is a different kettle of fish (and I'm sure that's what your article concentrated on iirc) but for major games, there are already so many breaks in play that I really don't think independent arbitration of this nature would be a bad thing.

So there are more breaks in play in the top flight than there are further down?

How do you make that out?

 

[JTG]

okay, well try this. The game may continue as normal while the refs in the video room look over the action. If they decide that a penalty infringement has gone unpunished, then that's communicated to the field, the ref blows and play stops for the penalty and disciplining of offences.

Meanwhile, in the passage of play that ends up not counting, a goal has been scored, a leg has been broken, a punch up has occurred requiring bookings/sendings off...

 

[Ned Pointsman]

It goes from bizarre to outright fucked up.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

So there are more breaks in play in the top flight than there are further down?

How do you make that out?

What i said above really - the playacting, the arguing, the remonstrations, etc etc. It's more like theatre than football, watching a lot of top flight games imo. This shit storm is just another manifestation.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

That's slightly disingenuous, as I'm sure you're aware. Yes, they go to the video ref at the point of the break in play but there's not a problem with then checking for penalties, obstruction, etc from earlier on in the play. All the statistics demonstrate that the ball is active and in play for much more of a rugby league match than a football match and the video ref decisions are probably the only major hindrance on that, yet it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the game as I see it.

Yes, but I think you may be missing the point here which is that at the time the video ref is called for the ball is already dead. This is the crucial and enormous difference. In football it might be dead, but most of the time it wil not be.

Top flight football games seem to be able to bear 5 minutes stoppages whilst the over-hyped and over-paid primadonnas roll all over the turf, it appears to bear the referee's decision being questioned verbally in a forceful and perjorative manner for minutes at a time, it doesn't have an issue with teams running down the clock by camping out in the corners of the pitch for 5 minutes at the end of games.

I'm not sure any of these are good examples as all of these things are deeply unpopular, are they not?

Are you seriously trying to claim that it wouldn't be able to incorporate the useage of a fourth official in the stands, with instant replay and miked up to the main ref as already happens?

It might, but do bear in mind how long it can take to make a definitive decision. In that time it's not at all unlikely that a goal will have been scored, that further controversial events will have occurred and so on. It's not going to be "clean" (if you understand me) in the way that cricket or rugby league decisions are. Of course there's a parallel in that sometimes in various sports play can be brought back after the official has waited for advantage to occur, but that's a question of a few short seconds, not two or three minutes. I think therefore that in practice it will be hugely disruptive and throughly unpopular.

Lower league football is a different kettle of fish (and I'm sure that's what your article concentrated on iirc)

Not as I recall but it's years ago so you could be right. I do remember saying that it wouldn't actually cut down on the overall amount of controversy since they will always, always find some other bone of contention (as they do in league, or cricket).

The point about lower legaue might be useful though insofar as it occurs to me - would they trial this stuff in real games? You probably recall them abolishing offside at free-kicks in the Conference years ago to see if it worked (it worked for Lincoln). Without some sort of serious, prolonged trial, we're all hypothesising.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

The point about lower legaue might be useful though insofar as it occurs to me - would they trial this stuff in real games? You probably recall them abolishing offside at free-kicks in the Conference years ago to see if it worked (it worked for Lincoln). Without some sort of serious, prolonged trial, we're all hypothesising.

Indeed, but the problem with trials in the lower leagues is the absence of cameras - that's precisely why i think it could work in top flight football because there are cameras pointing all over football pitches now so its much more likely that the incident will be captured from a suitable angle and thus allow for an appropriate decision to be made.

It would interesting (would it!?) to count up how many breaks in play there are in an average match - i'm not so convinced that the argument inre: loads of other events occuring after potentially contentious decisions is actually borne out in real life. For eg, with the Styles/Malouda incident, all the ref would have had to have done was let play continue so Drogba would have had a shot, either scored or missed and ball dead anyway and then go back to video ref to check the incident.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

with the Styles/Malouda incident, all the ref would have had to have done was let play continue so Drogba would have had a shot, either scored or missed and ball dead anyway

But this is what I can't agree with. It wouldn't necessarily be dead anyway. It's highly likely that it willl rebound, off a player or off the woodwork - what proportion of shots would you estimate make the ball go dead?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

When Drogba's shooting, your guess is as good as mine

 

[Ned Pointsman]

Wasn't drogba offside ?

 

[Bomber]

Styles, the only ref I've seen have a pie thrown at him .................... during the pre-match warm up !!!

 

[ZAMB]

word ...the biggger blunder of the weekend was Healy's goal not being given but Sanchez isn't giving it the big one like about it like Lardy Benitez and that decision could be just as if not more crucial at the end of the season than the Chelsea penalty

That linesman got suspended too, though he didn't have to publicly apologise like Styles did to Liverpool, AFAIK.

This whole public apology is a very strange precedent. Doesn't it undermine all decisions by premiership refs?

 

[Deareg]

That linesman got suspended too, though he didn't have to publicly apologise like Styles did to Liverpool, AFAIK.

This whole public apology is a very strange precedent. Doesn't it undermine all decisions by premiership refs?

why don't players have to apologise too when they are caught out cheating?

 

[ZAMB]

why don't players have to apologise too when they are caught out cheating?

I doubt if they would agree on who had cheated and when.

Ronaldo reportedly refused to apologise for the headbutt, after all.

 

[Relahni]

Who'd want to be a referee? Especially now the pressure is so high on the top teams to get results. It was a crap decision but nobody's perfect. And it is only football, not brain surgery.

I'm sure there are certain perks a ref could get during his career.



Buying players is bad enough, but buying referees. Where do we go from here?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

why don't players have to apologise too when they are caught out cheating?

don't know about apologies but When Saturday Comes did a great cover once based on this:

with the cover line: 'I'm really sorry that you just missed that penalty!!' which made me laugh.

 

[jonnyd1978]

Well I've had a bit of time to digest the games at the weekend and obviously the "Stiles Incident" has taken precedent. After listening to the hours of media coverage I have to say that I'm disgusted with the way Rob Stiles has been castigated and witch hunted!
I wish we would make up our minds what we want from refs. Some weeks we're cursing the players for surrounding refs and intimidating them. We're saying the players should respect the refs more and any player should be booked for acting like a twat.
Next thing, a ref makes an honest decision, ok it was a wrong one, but an honest one and he is public enemy number 1! I honestly don't believe any ref is biased and I think they try their best to do it right but they are human and they don't have the benefit of Sky Sports replays!
The media has now taken over the refereeing as Keith Hacket, Graham Poll and that beardy one who's name I've forgotton get their 5 minutes every time a ref fucks up!

 

[twistedAM]

I'm sure there are certain perks a ref could get during his career.



Buying players is bad enough, but buying referees. Where do we go from here?

Turin obviously.

 

[London_Calling]

Ronaldo reportedly refused to apologise for the headbutt, after all.

You think that was a "headbutt" ?

The media has now taken over the refereeing as Keith Hacket, Graham Poll and that beardy one who's name I've forgotton get their 5 minutes every time a ref fucks up!

It's a natural progression surely. The Sun's Sports editor effectively chooses the England manager nowadays, and the tabloids in general race around whatever Ref is flavour of the week hounding at his heels.

Fwiw, each season I start off surprised that the public accept this agenda because, call me crazy, you'd think they might want to discuss what was a great football match.