Skip to content

Match day thread: Carlisle

135

Comments

  • According to their statement, although at this stage he has only been charged, they are already considering an appeal. Sounds like they are not too hopeful of winning the argument........

  • Shame they can't make that ban include the return fixture at our place. At least we would get some form of direct "pay off". At least it gives us a pantomime villain to boo at Adams Park.
    I suppose the next point of debate could be how to name the offender in future Gasroom posts, as we have "diving Danny Hylton", so what say ye for Shaun Miller?

  • @aloysius said:
    At the very least Sam Saunders's yellow card should be rescinded as his reaction is perfectly justified now!

    Disagree, and I'm sure they will too. Just because a decision goes against you, as a professional footballer you're supposed to act accordingly.

  • @aloysius I don't think that's even possible and even if it were, I'm pretty sure the view would be that while from a human perspective his reaction was entirely understandable, it was itself a yellow card offence. Essentially the same argument as a booking for retaliation.

  • "It is alleged he committed a clear act of simulation which led to a penalty being awarded in the 35th minute of the game against Wycombe Wanderers on 17 October 2017.

    I guess they mean "clear" in respect of hindsight or according to the video footage. I think this is a perfect argument to use the fourth official to review the incident at the match and each manager could have one challenge per half only for use on game changing decisions (or non-decisions if you know what I mean). This may make the game a few minutes longer but in the end justice would be done at the time and it would be worth the wait IMHO.

  • It was a slightly tongue in cheek suggestion but it does highlight how we're the club that gets punished for another club's cheating: we lose a goal (harder to make the argument for two points), we get one of our own players closer to a suspension and we have our rivals benefiting from a weakened Carlisle while Miller is suspended.

    I actually think Ewan's idea is a sensible and workable solution - any ban should include the next time the player faces the club he cheated against, even if it's the following season or if the player signs for another club in the meantime.

  • Keep video replays out of football

    Would be awful

  • @DevC said:
    Only realistic options on this subject are
    a) live with it as part of the game
    b) introduce video technology
    I vote b).

    c) Fine the club very heavily and double the fine for a second offence within 12 months.

  • Why Eric?
    For key decisions seems very sensible to me. Some practicalities to iron out of course, but overall can only be a good thing.

  • This 2 match suspension thing, whilst I think it's an excellent thing that such cheats are going to get punished, it doesn't make any sense at all to me that if a player dives and the ref sees it they only receive a booking, but if the ref gets it wrong then they get a 2 match ban

    Surely time to upgrade punishment for diving to a red card?

  • Is it just me - or looking at the reply, he can argue that he is touched and goes down, albeit theatrically? The video doesnt look 'clear' to me (we are miles away for a start)- we all know he went down far to easily - but that isnt what they are looking at. The ref saw it as a pen. It would need to be something fairly conclusive for it to be judged as anything but that

  • @Tom said:
    Is it just me - or looking at the reply, he can argue that he is touched and goes down, albeit theatrically? The video doesnt look 'clear' to me (we are miles away for a start)- we all know he went down far to easily - but that isnt what they are looking at. The ref saw it as a pen. It would need to be something fairly conclusive for it to be judged as anything but that

    I think it's fairly clear that he dives, realises he wasn't touched or was barely touched, and carries on challenging for the ball as opposed to appealing for a penalty. If he had been touched, there is surely little doubt that he would have appealed. Presumably the initial dive is what carries most weight when it comes to deciding whether he will be punished, but I do wonder whether the fact he didn't appeal will work in his favour.

  • Agreed @eric_plant . Seems a very random punishment for after the event compared to if the referee was doing his job. Maybe bookings for this should be reviewed after the event in the similar way. This would give the same treatment to all and maybe see the odd booking rescinded for bad decisions.

    Anyone advocating video evidence as a solution should take a look at similar non line video referral systems being run in cricket, rugby, hockey and the NFL to see that are not anywhere near close to a good enough solution with multiple camera angles. Having one fixed half way line camera would make it almost impossible.

  • Make the ban equivalent to a straight red for the return match so Carlisle would start with 10 men.

  • Your argument is as inconsistent as usual Righty. You claim that video evidence could not possibly help referees make better decisions on a thread on which we and the FA have concluded that the Carlisle player dived having reviewed the video.

    No system can ever be perfect, but video evidence can only help more key decisions be made accurately and that must be a good thing.

    It was mooted that video technology was to be trialled in this years FA Cup. Anyone know whether this is still the case?

  • Dev you make a good point but is it really necessary to start your response by suggesting someone’s argument is as inconsistent as usual? Debate but also allow an alternative view without trying to put the other person down. Shame really, maybe on reflection you can see what I mean?

  • @DevC, I think you've jumped the gun a tad. The FA haven't concluded he dived, they think there's enough evidence for that judgment to be made by the panel. Innocent until proven quilty, and all that. In this respect I think the FA are rather like the CPS.

  • @niebieski said:
    Make the ban equivalent to a straight red for the return match so Carlisle would start with 10 men.

    What if they have already played the return match and are in different divisions the following season?

  • fair comment, Blue. I do get a little tired of Righty's automatic negativity every single time. But to be fair you are probably right even though it could be argued that "your argument is inconsistent as usual" is fair comment in respect of that particular poster!

    Wig, you are right of course, not guilty yet but given that Carlisle statement refers to them considering an appeal, it would seem they see the initial stage as an open and shut case!

  • @DevC The consistency of acknowledging Blue's comment and then ending the sentence with another dig is surely a bit odd isn't it? I live in a world where the A vs B argument is very rarely right but you constantly dissolve everything in to one thing or another and then shout inconsistency when others add more options.

    I don't see any video evidence in the world that can tell whether a player is committing a clear act of simulation but wondered that as it seems to be being used that there was a better way. Footballers are taught to leave the ground a bit on challenge to reduce the injury risk by removing the forces caused by the boot being on the ground. Also a foul doesn't have to result in any contact actually being made.

    Video evidence leaves officials vulnerable and the mere notion of being able to question the referees decision is something that should be removed from all sport.

  • Why does video evidence leave an official vulnerable. It is merely a tool to help him/her get the most important decisions right. In this case a penalty that had the referee had a chance to review perhaps would not have been given.

  • I think video evidence works pretty well in cricket, obviously alongside the other technology used to pick up sound from bat touching ball et al. My view in football is that we should introduce it if it aids arriving at the right decision.
    However, there is a secondary debate here regarding retrospective action. As someone stated earlier, we will not benefit from Miller’s retrospective suspension but maybe allied to a heavy fine, it may deter this type of cheating in future. Taking it to the extreme though, maybe such goals scored from actions that are retrospectively judged as cheating, should be rescinded and the result adjusted accordingly, that way the club that suffered from the cheating would get justice.

  • Not in my opinion, Blue.

    Lets just use the technology available to reduce the number of referring mistakes made.

  • @mooneyman said:
    What if they have already played the return match and are in different divisions the following season?

    Tricky one... if the offence led to a goal, the goal difference should be removed from the offending team and added to the victim's.

    Possibly a point transfer as well, one off the offenders to the other side. That would mean more than a financial penalty to most teams.

  • So @DevC are you saying that in this instance had video evidence been available the referee reviews it alone or does the fourth official do it (or, of course, both together).
    I can't see how a single fixed camera would give the referee more evidence for this 'dive' and to be honest the view of another person watching a TV screen is not really any more valid. Other sports with video review still have rule controversy.

    I think officials become more vulnerable because the mere notion of being able to question their decision makes a difference to the game and the attitude of the players. Test match cricket umpires have changed the way they umpire based on Hawkeye LBW reviews. As the 'umpires call' margin for error was reduced recently umpires are now giving less decisions and waiting for teams to challenge. Again this challenge mentality makes the umpire vulnerable.

    Finally and something I've not posted before I don't think Wycombe play at a level high enough to make video reviews in game an option. A single fixed camera is not enough and who pays for the other angles to be available and delivered in time? A 2D picture can't show depth, intent or indeed perspective in a single shot.

    You are more than welcome to disagree. I know you live in a black and white world. Trouble for me is whilst players cheat and referees are accountable decisions will always be part of the game. It has always been so I suppose.

  • video replays would ruin football

    be better if everyone grew up a bit, accepted that refs are doing the job to the best of their ability but will occasionally make mistakes and stop taking ourselves too seriously

  • Well again. Nieb, We could try ever more convoluted compensation for fraudulently gained referring errors OR we could just try to use the best methods available to get the decisions right.

    As I understand it every league match, righty, has camera cover - hence the videos. Every league match also has a fourth official. The camera used at Carlisle suggests that the referee got a key decision wrong. Obviously it would be ideal to have even more angles but we have what we have. While less than perfect, we have instantly available I believe, better information for the referee to make key decisions than one off eyesight.

    I simply don't understand therefore why you wouldn't use what you have - even if it is only capable of correcting say half the wrong key decisions?

  • Just think we could never moan, scream or shout about an important ref or lino decision ever again...(shudder). 'Clean your lens, cammo!'
    'Check your focus!'
    'Your memory card must be full, you Sony!'
    (nope it's just not the same)

  • even if it is "instantly available" the analysis of the footage isn't instant is it?

    what happens while the footage is being analysed? does play continue? or is the game stopped?

  • Well on Tuesday, the ref had blown for a penalty. On review if he found an error had been made, presumably we would be awarded a freekick for cheating and the Carlisle player punished.
    Admittedly it is more difficult when a foul has not been given that should have been. Play on, fourth official reviews. If decision was wrong he communicates with ref who brings game back I would have thought. But finding the best way to do it is the point of a trial.
    Surely better than simply accepting that key decisions that were wrong and virtually immediately known to be wrong just remain uncorrected.

Sign In or Register to comment.