40 secs to get the correct decision doesn't seem so bad.
https://www.facebook.com/ITVFootball...4614212593165/
Printable View
40 secs to get the correct decision doesn't seem so bad.
https://www.facebook.com/ITVFootball...4614212593165/
I thought it was brilliant. We all want the right decisions at the end of the day and it will make the pundits earn their money instead of talking about penalty or no penalty for a change
^^Quote:
Originally Posted by thehumblegringo
It has its downsides but in this instance it's a no-brainer really - correct decision on both counts.
Thanks for this but as most sensible non-chavvy people don't use faceless-book we will look elsewhere for it:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie
Seem sensible in this instance, natural break in play because ball was in the net, the question becomes how does it evolve from here. When the replays become available it could become a case where every decision is checked, every foul and every goal.
Would we as fans like to see a system, like cricket where the captain has a set amount of appeals per game, or like rugby union where the ref decides what he wants to see again.
Give that a spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryJason
https://twitter.com/itvfootball/stat...38904741351425
I was trying to just post the video direct from facebook, not just the link but it was a fail.
I know how to do it from you tube but not from elsewhere, any help appreciated.
I didn't watch the game, but from clips I've seen it seems like the players accepted the decisions with the least amount of fuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehumblegringo
That also must be better than seeing players hounding and surrounding the ref,trying it on.
Makes it tricky to celebrate a goal properly though. 40 seconds takes the edge off it.
Yep, there is that.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Though I've always enjoyed watching opposition players and fans celebrating disallowed goals in the past, so a few more of those would make up for it.
The first French goal was an easy one for them to decide as Kurzawa was a couple of feet offside before he headed the ball back to Griezmann.
What happens with slightly harder/closer calls? Griezmann for instance was maybe a couple of centimetres offside when the ball was played back. If Kurzawa wasn't offside, how long would it have taken, and how blatant does it have to be to be given as a definite yes/no? 3rd umpires in cricket sometimes spend over a minute looking at the various angles/zooms.
http://i.imgur.com/N3gudsf.jpg
Get everybody to celebrate Whitts style :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
It takes more than 40 seconds to brew a proper cup of tea!Quote:
Originally Posted by Des Parrot
He doesn't celebrate goals, he endures them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Des Parrot
I'm not sure how the trial worked out yesterday but it must surely have its benefits.
With regards to the comparison with cricket a couple of observations have got to be noted. India doesn't use the system for home series - surely it should all in or no-one still the top level. Also, some umpires have become reliant on the TV umpire to make the decision and become afraid of making a wrong decision themselves.
A good and much needed stride forward. Many other sports have embraced new technology. The sooner football does the better. In my opinion anyway.
From what I understood from commentators last night, the second Spanish goal was called offside which could be checked and overruled but if it wasn't called offside and in fact was this couldn't be checked. I personally didn't like it as even 40 seconds slowed the game down horribly and feel that there is an obsession with technology (that it's seen as the answer to every issue by the many lazy pundit out there) when players will still dive and surround the referee, but if you're going to be using technology in order to ensure goals are correctly given or not given then why are you only using it 50% of the time?