|
Post by shrewed46 on Apr 22, 2015 16:10:01 GMT 1
Football ends up with a major court case over a wrong decision by a referee.
Last week we had a women's international restarted a number of days after the final whistle because of of a mistake by the ref.
Now the SFA have written to Celtic apologising for the missed handball in the Scottish Cup Semi Final and retrospectively banning the offending player from the final.
Where will it end Steve Evans going to the high court to avoid a 3 point reduction?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2015 17:22:55 GMT 1
Where will it end Steve Evans going to the high court to avoid a 3 point reduction?
I'm sure Mr Evans know his way to court
Seriously though, the day it does that will be the day Sepp Blatter will have succeeded in turning a wonderful sport into something very wrong indeed.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Apr 22, 2015 18:02:54 GMT 1
Football ends up with a major court case over a wrong decision by a referee. Last week we had a women's international restarted a number of days after the final whistle because of of a mistake by the ref. Now the SFA have written to Celtic apologising for the missed handball in the Scottish Cup Semi Final and retrospectively banning the offending player from the final. Where will it end Steve Evans going to the high court to avoid a 3 point reduction? Retrospective bans rarely do anybody any favours. As much as I like to revel in their misfortune, what consolation is it to Celtic that Josh Meekings doesn't play in the final? None whatsoever. In fact, it smacks of pettiness and spite really. Who would want to be a referee in this day and age? Football routinely denies them access to progressive technology and decision review/referral systems that we see in every other first class sport, and then throws them under the bus when they miss something/get it wrong. Dangerous precedent indeed.
|
|
|
Post by markglasgow on Apr 22, 2015 19:14:20 GMT 1
If I hear one more thing about that handball!!
Seriously... Old Firm fans are the most paranoid people you will ever meet. This morning, I had a usually sensible work colleague thrust a picture of an alleged 'Masonic' handshake between ref and linesman before the match.... A different world.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 23, 2015 7:45:15 GMT 1
Football ends up with a major court case over a wrong decision by a referee. Last week we had a women's international restarted a number of days after the final whistle because of of a mistake by the ref. Now the SFA have written to Celtic apologising for the missed handball in the Scottish Cup Semi Final and retrospectively banning the offending player from the final. Where will it end Steve Evans going to the high court to avoid a 3 point reduction? Retrospective bans rarely do anybody any favours. As much as I like to revel in their misfortune, what consolation is it to Celtic that Josh Meekings doesn't play in the final? None whatsoever. In fact, it smacks of pettiness and spite really. Who would want to be a referee in this day and age? Football routinely denies them access to progressive technology and decision review/referral systems that we see in every other first class sport, and then throws them under the bus when they miss something/get it wrong. Dangerous precedent indeed. ...what consolation is it to Celtic that Josh Meekings doesn't play in the final? None whatsoever. In fact, it smacks of pettiness and spite really.
Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Apr 23, 2015 10:22:46 GMT 1
there was a big row when thierry henry handled the ball against the irish and cost them a world cup place
and the only time i think a club really cried until the rules were changed was liverpool when they missed out of a champions league place they cried and cried until eufa relented and let them in
oh and i wonder if celtic fans moaned at all about the maradona goal in 1986
there is enough money in the game these days to have extra officials either on the line, behind the goal or even on the pitch
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Apr 23, 2015 11:10:55 GMT 1
Retrospective bans rarely do anybody any favours. As much as I like to revel in their misfortune, what consolation is it to Celtic that Josh Meekings doesn't play in the final? None whatsoever. In fact, it smacks of pettiness and spite really. Who would want to be a referee in this day and age? Football routinely denies them access to progressive technology and decision review/referral systems that we see in every other first class sport, and then throws them under the bus when they miss something/get it wrong. Dangerous precedent indeed. ...what consolation is it to Celtic that Josh Meekings doesn't play in the final? None whatsoever. In fact, it smacks of pettiness and spite really.
Well said. Nothing like distorting the facts, it is SFA that have brought the action not Celtic in fact Celtic hope the player is allowed to play in the final. The use of retrospective punishment was bound to lead to this kind of dilemma, he the player had head butted a player for example resulting in a retrospective ban would fans have said he should have played in the final? The real question is do clubs accept the refs decision good or bad, or do we plan to spend 3 hours plus at the Greenhous Meadow waiting for video decisions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 11:30:02 GMT 1
...what consolation is it to Celtic that Josh Meekings doesn't play in the final? None whatsoever. In fact, it smacks of pettiness and spite really.
Well said. Nothing like distorting the facts, it is SFA that have brought the action not Celtic in fact Celtic hope the player is allowed to play in the final. The use of retrospective punishment was bound to lead to this kind of dilemma, he the player had head butted a player for example resulting in a retrospective ban would fans have said he should have played in the final? The real question is do clubs accept the refs decision good or bad, or do we plan to spend 3 hours plus at the Greenhous Meadow waiting for video decisions? Good points, well made. If we had devices in place to dissect and rule on every contentious decision, then that would be the day I will probably pack up watching the game. I like my football as it stands, warts and all. Where would we be if , after a match we are denied the chance to rant, rave whatever, over decisions the ref has made, with mates over a pint or two. What would be the point of pundits, and love ' em or loathe ' em, but at least they provide entertainment. There are officials that are used in the game placed behind the goal, why I don' t know. If they did the job they should be doing, then I doubt we would have won the play- off final at the Brittania Stadium? if you want every decision dissected, then might as well watch American Football, or cricket to a degree. It may be my age, but I like my football to be as it is now, played and governed in " real time". Just think, Englands goal v. West Germany 1966. Hand of God. Wycombes Ghost Goal. Mangans Goal v Bury. Fergie Time. all these decisions and many more would not be available for dissection by the viewing or paying public.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Apr 23, 2015 11:31:41 GMT 1
We don't need 3 hours plus. Line technology would do it for me. Either a ball crosses a line or it doesn't and that is an easily proven fact with technology. At least two of our most recent controversial decisions would have been sorted correctly, making other decisions bearable even if we didn't agree with them.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Apr 23, 2015 12:08:53 GMT 1
...what consolation is it to Celtic that Josh Meekings doesn't play in the final? None whatsoever. In fact, it smacks of pettiness and spite really.
Well said. Nothing like distorting the facts, it is SFA that have brought the action not Celtic in fact Celtic hope the player is allowed to play in the final. The use of retrospective punishment was bound to lead to this kind of dilemma, he the player had head butted a player for example resulting in a retrospective ban would fans have said he should have played in the final? The real question is do clubs accept the refs decision good or bad, or do we plan to spend 3 hours plus at the Greenhous Meadow waiting for video decisions? Distorting what facts exactly? I never once said Celtic were guilty of any wrong doing other than putting substantial pressure on the referee's union purely because of the size of the club. The pettiness and spite comment was in reference to Meekings being potentially banned from the final. I think you'll find Neil Lennon's comments today pretty much back up what I said yesterday. "3 hours waiting for video decisions". Talk about melodrama. However I accept many of the decisions made in football are contextual and aren't quite as simplistic as a out/not out decision in cricket where DRS are already in use.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Apr 23, 2015 12:47:44 GMT 1
Distorting the facts was relating to Stutty's post not yours.
Of course 3 hours is an over estimation but as every play can affect the result of the game, even a throw in, to ensure correct decisions were made, every period of play would need to be video replayed then we would see the correct result maybe!!!!!!
In my mind there are more important changes that could be introduced than video replay such as Sin Bins and Time ball is in play.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Apr 23, 2015 13:31:05 GMT 1
I'd be a fan of limited use of technology introduced. Not constant stop/start but something added to GLT (which will hopefully spread to us sometime soon!) like reviews available for referees if they require for the occasional big decision, such as in Rugby, or even captains getting a review every match they can choose when to use. Obviously there would need to be fine-tuning but I'd rather have it brought in than not, simply because we seem to get more bad decisions against us than for! Plus benefitting from such decisions never offsets the negativity of being on the wrong end of them, even if they do balance out. Although I can kind of see the argument about controversial decisions being a talking point, there will still be controversy (just less) and I also quite like the build up to a review in Tennis/Cricket/Rugby, always a nailbiting moment.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 23, 2015 14:02:39 GMT 1
...what consolation is it to Celtic that Josh Meekings doesn't play in the final? None whatsoever. In fact, it smacks of pettiness and spite really.
Well said. Nothing like distorting the facts, it is SFA that have brought the action not Celtic in fact Celtic hope the player is allowed to play in the final. I think you've either misinterpreted the post or you're a bit too defensive with that response. LSF's post didn't criticise Celtic or distort the facts. It asked what consolation it was to Celtic to have Meekings banned for the final. The decision does smack of pettiness and spite but that comes from the SFA and anyone who felt it appropriate to ban him. Any inference that Celtic were part of that chorus belongs to the reader; it's not there in the post. Blimey, last week I wanted to give KL8 a lift, this week I'm defending LSF - amazing what a bit of spring sunshine can do for the soul.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 23, 2015 14:28:38 GMT 1
...what consolation is it to Celtic that Josh Meekings doesn't play in the final? None whatsoever. In fact, it smacks of pettiness and spite really.
Well said. Nothing like distorting the facts, it is SFA that have brought the action not Celtic in fact Celtic hope the player is allowed to play in the final. The use of retrospective punishment was bound to lead to this kind of dilemma, he the player had head butted a player for example resulting in a retrospective ban would fans have said he should have played in the final? The real question is do clubs accept the refs decision good or bad, or do we plan to spend 3 hours plus at the Greenhous Meadow waiting for video decisions? Made me chuckle that our kid. I know Celtic hold plenty of sway up there north of the border but I don't think anyone yet thinks that they have been granted the powers to ban players as they deem fit. Not yet anyhows. So with that said, it's a given that it was the SFA who brought the action. You know, as it's kinda them who who hold the power to do so.
|
|
|
Post by weststandshrew on Apr 23, 2015 20:24:11 GMT 1
I would like to see referees interviewed at the end of matches in the same way players and managers are. This would give pundits and interviewers a chance to praise the refs when they've done well but also question incorrect decisions. I think the fans would have more sympathy with the refs if they came out and explained wrong decisions.
|
|