Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Match day thread: Carlisle



  • Hawkeye in cricket has vastly improved umpires’ decision making with regards to LBW decisions. The common understanding of which deliveries will go on to hit the stumps has changed on the basis of the evidence provided by the new technology.

    I agree with @eric_plant that there is very limited scope for video replays in football, given the pace of the game. It’s dissimilar to cricket and tennis in that there are no natural pauses between points or deliveries, and dissimilar to rugby in that a goal is a nearly always goal without the need to check a myriad of things which might have happened in the build up to a try. How many goals would be ruled out by video replays? Decisions about whether the ball has crossed the line must be relevant for only a tiny number of goals. About the only thing they would be useful for is checking offsides, and how long back from a goal would you check?

  • Great post Wendoverman.

  • I'd just prefer this investment and time to go in to helping referees make better decisions in the first place @DevC. I don't actually see how a camera in the roof of the stand does give a better view than the one the referee had in this instance. The Carlisle player may well have dived but I don't see how a judgement call can be 100% certain based on what we have. The FA have decided to try it but that doesn't mean it is right.

    It's going to be interesting to see who gets charged going forward. Does it have to be a penalty that the ref has maybe got wrong? Will the next one be a routine dive in the middle of the pitch with no overall change to a result per se? To be fair all simulation should have the same punishment. It shouldn't be worse just because the ref didn't see it or didn't see it as someone sees it on TV? I just don't see every dive being charged. I don't see every fake injury being charged. If they aren't then the random examples picked just make the sport more random than before.

    You know you haven't earned the right to call me 'Righty' don't you @DevC. I'm going to ask politely for you to stop.

  • A penalty was wrongly awarded on Tuesday, Chris. Long before it was taken, anyone with access to the video knew that it shouldn't have been. it resulted in a goal that should never have been. That's just dumb.
    There is no investment, Mr Middle (I humbly apologise for my previous informality). There is already a camera. It filmed the video we have all seen. A judgement call using that camera cannot be 100% correct. it is however more likely (but not certain) that key decisions will be right than the current system of just using one guys naked eye (with a couple of people with flags maybe helping out).

  • "virtually immediately" - don't think so

    And what if in the time it takes to review an incident the game continues and a goal is scored?

    It's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard, and would ruin football as a viewing spectacle, which, granted, affects some more than others on here

  • Mind you DevC, there is nothing like watching a game live.

  • edited October 2017

    Still not sure how a fixed camera in the roof of the stand is more likely to be right than the eyes of a person (or the eyes of three people if you believe the myth assistants can give anything other than throw ins and corners) that should only be a matter of yards away. I suppose that is where our differing views start and end.

  • In my scenario, a clear injustice would be avoided. This will happen fairly regularly. A penalty given or not given. A goal awarded or not awarded for offside.

    Your scenario will happen once in a blue moon. team A should have been awarded a penalty, they were not and B break away and score. What is the justice in that situation. Should B's goal stand or should A get their penalty.

    Lets give it a trial and see if your viewing spectacle is really ruined or if change actually can turn out to be a good thing. it is an extraordinary argument that the referees eyes is the only possible way to adjudicate a football match just because it was before technology became available.

  • As the technology is already there, I also think they should give out Gareth's number so we can text during the game when our expert eyes see that X is knackered/ineffective/a waste of space and suggest subs, changes in formation and what to say to the fourth official. It can only improve the matchday experience.

  • It would be fascinating to see how badly a game would go if the supporters could vote on everything with a little app on their phone, rather than having a manager.

  • Fascinating would be one word for it @OxfordBlue

  • No interest in trialling it

    I know it would be terrible

  • I've not seen anything anywhere which explains how the FA arrived at their decision to charge the player. Was there an FA official in the ground who saw the incident? Or have the FA been informed of the alleged offence by WWFC? I suspect the latter. If that is indeed the case Wycombe would gain some advantage from a player ban since opposing players will think twice about simulation when playing against us in the future (Danny Hilton please note).

  • If WWFC reach the third rd of the cup, Eric, you may begin to find out......

  • It’s not like we haven’t won a few decisions with our tumbling antics. Every dive could possibly have a knock on effect to the eventual result. Perhaps we went more gung-ho when 2-0 down than we would’ve done at 1-0? Who knows.

    And I don’t think the cricket comparison is a good one. Even the shortest form of the game is 2.5 hours - it lends itself to the drama of the review.

    I’d prefer a stiff ban for divers. The end result would be managers telling their players to stop doing it. Cheap, quick and easy.

    I imagine the cost of decent, instant video playback at all 92 clubs would be pretty costly.

  • I've thought of one massive benefit of the managers having one review - it would stop Arsêne Wenger saying he didn't see the penalty incident

  • I’m not a fan of the idea of using video replays in football, for one because I don’t think the majority of decisions are matters of fact.
    However, I happened to be at the Bayern vs Leverkusen Bundesliga game in August and couldn’t argue with how quickly ‘VAR’ was used to award a penalty to Bayern.
    I’d be very surprised if it’s not used in the premier league in the near future, but cant see it being adopted in league 2 any time soon, given the lack of cameras at games.

  • Oops, ASCII catastrophe - Arsène, of course

  • On a more serious note, it's clear from the Carlisle report that the panel has already sat. The appeal, if there is one, will be against the charge, not some subsequent conviction.

  • @OakwoodExile. I don't think its clear the panel has sat, although I accept that may be the case.
    My reading of the FA website, is that the charge is made by the FA and the video evidence reviewed by the panel. If proven or the offence admitted then the played gets a ban.
    The article is not clear on whether the charge has been proven. A result should be made before Saturdays game though.
    For what its worth, I'm not convinced the charge will be proven because there has to be clear evidence that the player intended to deceive the match official. Which in the highlights I've seen I'm not sure there is.
    I'm pretty sure the ref has made a bad decision, but I think Miller/ ball / Scare come together and the Miller falls over. It happens all the time in tackles, it doesn't always mean a player has "dived". Unless its Diving Danny

  • Hi @Twizz. With respect, it is clear. The Cumbrians website quotes the charge, and this is the critical phrase:

    "Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would The FA issue a charge"

    Since the charge has been issued, the panel must be unanimous, which would be hard to achieve if they hadn't sat!

  • edited October 2017

    agree with @eric_plant on video replays.
    The game is already slowed down with time wasting and the likes, to have yet more delays would be tiresome.
    It would take away all the fevered and entertaining "We wuz robbed" talk as well.

    Someone said cricket works well replays. That's the slowest sport in the world, 5secs of action every 2mins. It's already super slow, so nothing is lost at all. And even then, you very often can't see if there's a nick or not.

  • @OakwoodExile if you read the wording of the FA website, they issue the charge if they believe there is evidence to review. Its up to the panel to either prove or disprove the charge.
    Just because the Carlisle website is poorly worded doesn't mean the charge has been proven.

  • A couple of points.

    We are talking about the first use (I believe) of the potential retrospective video ban. Given that there have been over 600 matches where this had the potential to be used for diving. The context of this debate (on video technology) is therefore that we are discussing something that is apparently clear cut on a view of the video. It can therefore be inferred that very few decisions of this nature are clear cut enough to form a definitive view from watching a replay.

    The introduction of video technology, at other than premier or international level, is therefore likely to lead to most decisions (other than offside) being inconclusive enough to be ‘referee’s call’. To disrupt the flow of every game for the very rare instances when it does actually make a difference is not enough for me to think it would be a good idea (at lower league level).

    On the retrospective ban as a deterrent, this has to be a good thing. I’d extend it to fining the manager on an increasing scale and I think you may find DDH doesn’t play that many games. What’s not to like?

  • I'm sorry @Twizz, but the Carlisle website says it's quoting the FA charge. It doesn't seem to be poorly worded or ambiguous to me, and also makes sense of the need to appeal today. You can't appeal if there's no decision to appeal against.

  • Okay @Oakwood, but if I was charged by the police with an offence would that make me guilty before the evidence had been reviewed. I'd hate to live in your world. Guilty just because I'd been charged.

  • Luckily he didn't commit a criminal offence, so the process is unlikely to be the same.

  • With slightly less respect @Twizz, it's not my world. I didn't make the rules up, I'm merely telling you what they appear to be.

  • What's truly astonishing to me, given the instances that are shown on TV on a regular basis, is that he would become the first player in England to be banned retrospectively for diving.
    I can only think that the FA have more video footage than I've seen in the highlights.

  • I would have put money on diving Danny getting that accolade.

Sign In or Register to comment.