PL 2015-16 Chat

[itfciain]

Shocking peno decision but as I had 2-1 Spurs in Pete's comp and have also back Spurs to win the league then can't be too upset!

Thought Toure was a disgrace in that game - showed no urgency and half the time he was blatantly not interested - he seems to me to be a bit of a baby when things aren't going his way

Feel for Leicester in the other game (which I had backed to be 1-1 :evil: ) - don't think Arsenal deserved it at all

Man U are out of it, so it is down to those 4 - Arsenal have some tough games and both Spurs and Leicester are one or two injuries away from being in trouble but still think it is between those three - City just don't look bothered enough

 

[edd_jedi]

Thought Toure was a disgrace in that game - showed no urgency and half the time he was blatantly not interested - he seems to me to be a bit of a baby when things aren't going his way

And he could easily have been sent off in the first 15 minutes, his two tackles were no better than Simpson's in the Leicester game.

 

[weasel]

Yeah, Toure was incredibly lucky to get away with that tackle in first few minutes. I agree with Niall Quinn had that been any body from a lower half side making the same tackle the card would have been brandished. I don't really get the "it's early in the game, so i'll let you off" thing. A foul is a foul. If he does it in the box, it's still a penalty so why is it different on the half way line.
Even more amazed Toure didn't get booked 10 mins later for his second tackle, then low and behold Dier gets a yellow (rightly, it was a text book yellow) close to half time for a tackle similar to Toure's first.

Ohh and that was NEVER penalty spuds got. Harsh as they come.


PS, that Villa side are a disgrace to PL football. I feel so sorry for Villa fans. The players don't give a **** they know if they go down they will get sold or moved on and it's no skin off their backs. The owner has wanted shot of the club for years and has starved it of cash to such an extent that they are in real danger of going down again next year. Look at Sheffield Wednesday, a "big club" with a great stadium and large fan base (when they went down) they still haven't come back. Forest are another. Villa have massive massive problems and, weird as it sounds, this season could well be as good as it gets for a few years. Sad to see.

 

[edd_jedi]

I personally only think a red should be issued for something like a fight or a leg-breaking dangerous challenge, it always ruins the game (see Arsenal v Leicester) especially if it happens with loads of time left. I think it's almost always an unfair advantage. At least a team can come back from a penalty, losing a man pretty much makes it game over.

 

[plantman]

Thats why red cards and penalties should go for a 3rd ref video review, instant video replay to a third party for quick review so its not a game chaging mistake

 

[kingshearer]

I like the idea of video ref reviewing of games but not during the game.
It should be retrospective and I think cheating etc would soon drift out of the game . We don't want in-game reviews since it would destroy the game. I like watching Basketball and Gridiron from stateside and I think in-game video referee'ing has had an adverse effect on those games but it's not devastating due to all the stoppages they have anyway for adverts.
As far as the subjective subject of handball goes I sense those borderline decisions always go with the home sides so what they should do is give a freekick/pen regardless of whether it was ball to hand or hand to ball since only players know if it was deliberate or not. I know it won't be 100% but it's got to be less frustrating than leaving it up to the ref to decide in a split second. And it will mean players will need to learn to avoid handling balls rather than waving their arms around which is a skill in itself.

 

[weasel]

We don't want in-game reviews since it would destroy the game.

Would it though?
I play hockey, badly, and it's a much faster sport than Football. They have video umpires in top level hockey (international tournaments and hockey's equivalent of the champions league). It does slow the game down a bit when a team or umpire makes a referral but I wouldn't say it's any more than, say, a football match gets slowed down when someone is injured or when there's a corner or a booking. Sure a minute or two of ppl standing about as the ref looks at the video and then radios down, but that's what happens when teams get corners etc.
Most players would rather a correct decision is made than a wrong one, and it tends to become self policing as people realise previously they may have got away with certain things that now they wont. Obviously, there are still things they can get away with but their scope for playing the system is reduced.

In fact, you probably don't even need to stop the game. You could have the 4th official sat up in a box watching the game on tv using all the feeds Sky have and if he thinks the ref has missed something major (I don't mean given a throw the wrong way) or dropped a bollock he can radio him and tell him. Most refs now wait 30 seconds after a big incident to give themselves time to think, would that really be affected if instead of them thinking they got on the radio (don't forget they are already linked up to linesmen) and ask the 4th official 'yellow or red' etc? The 4th official could also advise linesmen if they have missed a blatant offside. Ok the flag may go up late, but we see late flags as it is, and surely a late but correct flag is better than a wrong decision!?

 

[theforceuk]

It's slowed Rugby, Cricket and Tennis down. Probably make it less annoying for the spectators and players though.

 

[SAVORY100]

Having spent a just over a decade as a Premier League season ticket holder, I think that most fans would actually appreciate having a 30 second break to get a key decision right compared to the dozens of times a season that the fans leave a match feeling totally hard-done by to then either spend the week agreived or of course to get home, watch match of the day and see the decicion was right all along. Pace of the game is important of course, but as a regular over the years there are breaks for treatment, ball out of play, time-wasting keepers each and every game, no one gets that aggie about them and they're generally not a benefit to the match, its atmosphere or game play...

The decisions made don't just affect points on a made up table that tracks perfomance either; Mark Clattenburg actually came over to a group of us a dozen or so matches after he had refereed a match at WHL with a notably poor, game changing decsion. He was actually very apologetic to our group of fans (I was blessed to sit front row, almost on the half way line, shelf side) and he explained that he'd had sleepless nights for weeks after, knowing that he had really c*cked up. So this again suggests that (it is only a game afterall) people's lives can be affected by these split second decisions and for the sake of a few seconds break in play to refer to a 4th official/TV adjudicator, a lot of grief, bad feeling and season changing issues can be resolved.

I don't enjoy rugby as a game, in fact I think its utter tripe, played at an 'elite level' by a crop of players that has been skimmed from a tiny pool.. not to mention that it has so many rules its not actually fun to watch or play. Is it any surprise that two jumpers, two kids and a round ball is more prevalent?! BUT, one thing that 'sport' does well, having been to a few international games in the past few years on work do's, is the way the players respect the Ref and teh Ref's ability to call on help to make sure the right decison is made. It actually can be an additional layer of entertainment waiting for the TV review to come back and make the final decsion before awarding a penalty... Can't see why this approach (on a less dramatic scale even) can't be deployed in football.

 

[kingshearer]

Pace of the game is important of course, but as a regular over the years there are breaks for treatment, ball out of play, time-wasting keepers each and every game, no one gets that aggie about them and they're generally not a benefit to the match, its atmosphere or game play...

I find these delays to the game appalling especially when you see a slo-mo of the 'foul' and realise he wasn't even touched or he was brushed on a part of the body which he isn't holding as he wriggles at deaths door, only to reappear with a spring in his step a few moments later having achieved his teams objective of getting an opponent booked or sent off with a freekick or penalty. Certain players and even teams appear to do this more than others I hasten to add. I've had these discussions with mates till I'm blue in the face but FIFA etc don't want to tackle this problem infact they don't see a problem which makes it doubly frustrating. Commentators and pundits need to be more honest and say what we all see when these acts of cheating take place but they're probably gagged and bound by FIFA/UEFA/FA/SKY anyway.
As for game delays, like in basketball, every time the ref blows a special whistle the match clock should stop simples.

 

[kingshearer]

It's slowed Rugby, Cricket and Tennis down. Probably make it less annoying for the spectators and players though.

I think it's worked wonders in tennis and cricket which have long pauses between play anyway. For Rugby it's overused and should only be used to review a contentious try decision did his foot step out of touch, did he apply pressure etc.. They seem to check for high tackles etc which always look worse in slow motion.

 

[theforceuk]

It's slowed Rugby, Cricket and Tennis down. Probably make it less annoying for the spectators and players though.

I think it's worked wonders in tennis and cricket which have long pauses between play anyway. For Rugby it's overused and should only be used to review a contentious try decision did his foot step out of touch, did he apply pressure etc.. They seem to check for high tackles etc which always look worse in slow motion.

Yeah Cricket and Tennis have evan more long pauses now than before and both have got the balance right IMO. Agree on Rugby it's silly video replay's are over used.

You could argue that in Tennis it has saved time, because it stops the players protesting for 1 or 2 minutes on occasions.

In Football the bad decisions are usually something that you need to see 2 or 3 times (not always) which is where it's used in Rugby. Problem is the ref's in Rugby use it as confirmation a lot rather than a last resort. They should come up with something in Football for the offside rule similar to goal line technology suerly it's possible.

 

[weasel]

I don't enjoy rugby as a game, in fact I think its utter tripe, played at an 'elite level' by a crop of players that has been skimmed from a tiny pool.. not to mention that it has so many rules its not actually fun to watch or play.

Seconded. Literally never seen the attraction in that game. Bar kicking it's a sport devoid of skill. If you are 6 foot 4 and built like a brick **** house, assuming you have mastered the ever so tricky art of holding a ball whilst ehh running, you can be coached to be a good rugby player. In no other sport does that apply.

 

[kingshearer]

I third that emotion. Egg chasing is still an elitist sport although I'm guessing a select few are now coming from working class backgrounds.
The game is inferior to football in so many ways and it's the most complicated game in the world with only the refs seeming to know what's going on. For instance I see so many forward passes but they never seem to get penalised and it drives me up the wall I can only think it's the camera angle.
I do watch the 6 nations and World cup and despite being English I do like to cheer on their opponents since the English come across as too arrogant with their divine right to win, especially when playing at 'Twix'.

 

[theforceuk]

I used to think like this about Rugby but have got into the International stuff a bit recently, don't get me wrong I don't love it but it's better than American Football or Golf.

 

[weasel]

That's like saying Ebola is better than AIDS! :lol:

Golf isn't a sport. It's a pastime. There is a difference. A sport requires top level competitors to be supremely fit, and to practice for thousands of hours. Whilst I don't doubt all professional golfers have done the latter if anyone wants to tell me Darren Clarke, Colin Montgomery or John Daily are supremely fit, I'm all ears. Ohh and then there's yer Spanish Bloke who's warm up consists of some gentle stretches whilst smoking a cigar....
As for American football, from what I can see it's a slower, ****-er and simpler version of rugby. Our American friends do like their sport simple and with lots of points scored.

 

[theforceuk]

I've tried watching American football, but always fall asleep only to be woken up by the shout of touch down. Would like to go to a Super Bowl one day just to see what it's all about. But could probably buy 21 back Boba Fett and more for the same price as a ticket, so not going to happen. :?

I apologise for mentioning Golf and American Football on the PL chat thread. :lol:

 

[edd_jedi]

I'm sure they could come to a compromise where only game-changing decisions were quickly reviewed via a video replay (sendings off, penalties, goals.) After all they already have the 4th official and linesman that the ref can stop play to confer with, if it's done over an ear piece what's the difference? It's ridiculous to think that one man running around the pitch can get every decision right, he's not even the right side of the ball a lot of the time (eg the Spurs/City penalty last weekend.) What % of decisions do you think referees get right, 80%? It's not good enough in a sport with so much at stake.

 

[weasel]

TBF to referees I do think most of them do a great job, but it's the odd clanger that people remember.
I'd be fairly sure most refs would have no objects to a bit of technology to help them get more decisions right. It's not as if people don't know or get to see the mistakes they make anyway so technology won't be highlighting things people don't already know.

 

[edd_jedi]

What do you make of Chelsea's thrashing of Man City yesterday? I think making up 14 points in 12 games is too much of an ask, but I can see them finishing 5th or 6th. And City have now lost to pretty much every top half (or should be top half) team this season, so I think they're now out of the title race. They might return to dominance next season under Guardiola, but I think their and Chelsea's unusually poor form has given Leicester, Arsenal and Spurs a real chance at a shock league title. It's down to them all to screw it up now.

Shame Spurs are out of the FA Cup but it was just one of those games, didn't really do anything wrong and could easily have won. Not sure how Alli's shot managed to hit both posts without going in. And it will probably give them a better shot at the PL title too. I bet Arsenal are gutted they have an FA Cup replay, I said before the game I would prefer to lose than have a replay.