The dust has settled on the week-end, referees, what do you think should happen.

[jarv]

They hold up play in cricket? Does anyone ever notice.

Sorry to labour the point...QUESTION FOR FULHAM JUNKIES ....
OK, we lost 2 points because of a poor decision. Some say it even's out.

IS THERE A GAME THIS SEASON IN WHICH WE GAINED 2 POINTS DUE TO REF ERROR? anyone recall? If there is then discussion over.

[BalDrick]

First five minutes of the game the ball did not go out or get stopped for a foul or anything.

It would slow the game down as you would stop the clock for a review...or would you?

What would you review?

Well that's a different matter, something that can be agreed upon before a season/international tournament starts, with the list being added to/taken from once experience tells us what works and what doesn't.

Goal line clearly, pens too. But also, as I've said elsewhere and as Le Tiss said last night, there ought to be a system whereby mistaken yellows can be rescinded. Of course if it's a 2nd yellow, then I'd say that makes the list of things that can be reviewed immediately - again it's not like it doesn't take an age for the players to whinge and challenge the ref's decision (that'll be down to you Mr Halsey) then finally leave the field anyway, and the subsequent free kick/pen to be taken.

The technology is available already, cricket and rugby have taken it on board to their credit, yet the sport that has many more followers, not to mention a huge amount more money in, sticks its head in the sand and lets Ferguson et al continue to ruin the game.

[BalDrick]

'They hold up play in cricket? Does anyone ever notice.'

Only people clever enough to understand the finest sport known to man.

[The King]

IS THERE A GAME THIS SEASON IN WHICH WE GAINED 2 POINTS DUE TO REF ERROR? anyone recall? If there is then discussion over.

The Gervinho penalty incident against Arsenal at home was quite clearly a penalty to me. Then again, it was 0-0 and it was early in the match.

[Logicalman]

It seems very reasonable to me to incorporate 2 rules (and perhaps it's from being a Yank where American sports get 3 timeouts and unlimited video replays etc)

1. Goal line technology. This is a no brainer.

2. One appeal per team per game to appeal against or argue for a penalty decision with video replay. This would keep managers from appealing every decision, but bringing an element of fairness to the game.

No need for an appeal system though - play on and the 4th official can review it, radio the ref and say 'go back, that was a pen'.

It's all the other layers people try to bring to this debate that obfuscate the issue IMO.

What if the ball stays in play and goes upfield and a goal is scored and then the 4th official says it was a penalty at the other end?  ;-)

Play is called back, what else could happen? The bigger picture is the level playing field surely isn't it?

I thought of the same idea, but upon review I found a stumbling block.

As you mentioned, what if a goal ensues between the incident and the penalty being given, then the play is called back, and I would imagine the other goal disallowed as it didn't actually occur.
Another scenario: The incident happens, but this time, whilst the video ref is reviewing it, a foul is committed that causes a red card to be shown. If the play is called back to the penalty, then, by the same logic as the disallowed goal, the red card could not have happened either. If that is accepted, what if the red card was for a foul on a player that broke his leg. How would that be dealt with?

The reason the video ref has been successful in games such as American Football and Rugby, is simply because the play has stopped at that point, thus a natural break. This doesn't happen in football so often, and so either the play has to be stopped for the review, or the mess (as shown above) is a distinct possibility.

I do not believe, apart from goal-line technology, that there is a good way of dealing with this that would not adversely affect the natural flow of the game. And before we think this is a modern phenomena, cast you minds back almost 50 years, and think what happened then, and where. Nothing actually has changed, except the speed of the play has gotten faster, but bad or incorrect refereeing decisions have been with us for at least my lifetime, and perhaps as much as any member here.

[The Bronsons]

The difference is that fifty years ago we didn't have cameras at every game and at every angle. So the mistakes were easily forgotten or even not ever seen by most of the people at the match.

If there were no cameras, we wouldn't need to use the technology.

But we have cameras, and they're not going away. So it makes no sense that the only person not allowed that information is the poor idiot referee.

The old saying "hard cases make bad law" comes to mind. What if?... What if?... What if? - These are all extreme situations, and sure there would be a few injustices in those extreme situations; but most of the difficult situations melt away if you have a few simple rules.

Another scenario: The incident happens, but this time, whilst the video ref is reviewing it, a foul is committed that causes a red card to be shown. If the play is called back to the penalty, then, by the same logic as the disallowed goal, the red card could not have happened either. If that is accepted, what if the red card was for a foul on a player that broke his leg. How would that be dealt with?

For example, this problem melts away if you remember the red card is for violent conduct on the pitch. The fact play has been brought back makes no difference. The red card stands, and the play is called back for the previoius incident. Simples.

[ImperialWhite]

@twoht (off of Twitter):

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only way to get rid of this perpetual hum of anger over refereeing decisions...............

.........Is to do away with referees and linesmen altogether. Make it survival of the angriest. Playground rules.

Mistakes happen all the time. Unless you think there is/are conspiracy, I don't understand the anger.

[li_special]

Does the poor decisions make the game what it is,yes to goal line tech but to challenge other decisions would for me take the pub banter away.
The NFL brought in the challenge rule because they were always reviewing plays also if a team challenges and found to be wrong they lose a time out which could cost them later on.
Hawkeye is now used in cricket and tennis but only on televised games so county cricket still relies on the umpire and in tennis John mac rants would not be the same if he had hawkeye.
Yes the top teams do get all the right or wrong decisions in there favour are the refs scared about what the manager or press will say but the top four/five are always in the press you never hear about a bad call at a Doncaster match.  

[Rupert]

Good level of debate here, on both sides, now for me to kill it 

I think the rugby league arrangement, reviewing if a try has been scored, shows one of the dangers of technology. The ref knows he has a video review available if he is unsure if a try is legal or not (pardon me for not knowing the full rules, I am not an egg-chaser, this is from my occasional viewing of a televised match), so if there is even a shred of doubt, he will call for the review. Why? Because, as the technology is there, if the ref fails to use it and makes a wrong decision, he will be crucified. So, even when he is certain it was a try, that the possibility of it not being is pretty much negligible, he will still go for the video, just in case. This does slow things down and does rob the ref of much of his authority, and trust me, when it is you versus twenty-two others, you sometimes need that authority.

The notion of a fifth official, in a secet bunker somewhere, reviewing situations and calling play back if necessary- oof! So it is Fulham v BigTeam, five minutes from time, 0-0, Fulham are attacking, the ball flies into the area, strikes an opponent on the arm, the ref thinks "ball to hand, but only just" and waves play-on. As we go ballistic about this appalling (in our eyes) decision, the reviewer looks at it, decides the ref was right and stays silent. Straight up to the other end, the opposition cross the ball in, it smacks Hughes on the arm, ref thinks, "identical situation, play on", the reviewer detects miniscule movement from Hughes' arm, calls it back, penalty.
Now, this is, by law, absolutely correct. There is no corruption, no favouritism. But, would WE believe it?

You see, much as I moaned about Oliver's decision making at Old Trafford (and I see the numpty was at it again with Norwich yesterday, luckily his cowardice didn't cost them), I think the vast majority of decisions made both for and against us by match officials are correct, fair and impartial. I think that most referees are a better judge of how a game is flowing, and have a better idea of how to deal with situations on the pitch, than somebody with a more detached viewpoint.
I do think that officials like Oliver need to face sanctions for their actions, much as players do, and he clearly needs to be dropped down the pyramid for a while (a season, perhaps?) until he discovers his backbone, but Clattenburg, while not a particularly good referee, is usually equally incompetent. Last night he thought he saw a penalty, he made the decision. I think he was wrong, but I am clearly going to be biased (so saying, I would not have been happy had we won a penalty like that) but he at least had the courage to make his decision and stick with it. As others have said, he possibly could have awarded them another penalty, maybe he didn't because he was wondering if he had screwed up with the one he did give.

As for technology- ball over the line, yes, a no-brainer, if it is a goal we need to know it was a goal, so use it.
Anything else- not yet, see how the goal line thing goes for a couple of seasons, first. If we get comfortable with the technology in use we might be more willing to see other ideas utilised.

[Logicalman]

unfortunately, 'What If's" are always used in any argument, and to ignore them is always fraught with danger.

I am not against technology, per se, but just to bring it in, and then shift the 'blame' for such decisions on some nameless/faceless 5th official, is akin to moving the goalposts, pun intended, and will prove fruitless as even that 5th official won't give that penalty against United at OT or Liverpool at Anfield, and will still 'punish' those smaller teams who have less media strength with which to victimize the officials after the game.

Technology, such as ball-over-the-line that avoids any human interaction is something I would approve of, and I thought we were the guinea pigs for that not so very long ago, so what happened?

[rhyspabsolom]

What I think a lot of people misunderstand in this debate is how little effect it would have on the game.
Here are some key points on how it would (/should) probably be implemented:

1) No 4th official is calling anything back. Decisions would only be reviewed under request of the referee on the pitch ("Can you check that the ball did hit his arm and not his chest?")

2) VERY FEW decisions would be overturned. Benefit of the doubt will ALWAYS go to the referee. For those of you that don't watch cricket, the majority of appeals end up with Umpire's Call (which basically means there's not enough evidence to suggest the umpire was wrong).
So yes, we would still complain that the decision was wrong and we would get fancy new buzzphrases like "even with the technology we have now!", etc but - really - it would be that little bit fairer.
It's worth saying that I very much doubt Chelsea's penalty would have been overturned.

The problem would be that referees might rely a bit too much on it (like the rugby refs mentioned) and would be keener to give penalties then ask for it to be looked at.

And - due to the Umpire's Call nature - big clubs would still get a lot of the decisions their way (and they do) but even if it makes the game 5% fairer, it HAS to be looked into.

Oh, and the notion that "these things even themselves out over a season" is utter utter utter bollocks of the highest calibre.

[HatterDon]

If you've watched games from the National Basketball Association [NBA] at any time over the last 50 years, you'll hear said of a young player: "He won't get that call until he's been in the league a few years." What this means is that in a collision between a rookie and a veteran player, the vet always gets the call. What I used to think was "They let the old guys get away with murder" was actually "It takes a little while for the refs to see how this new guy makes his moves."

The point being that judgement calls are always going to be called into question. My rule of thumb is that if I didn't see clearly what happened until I watch a replay, I'll go with the ref's decision. 

[ImperialWhite]

Oh, and the notion that "these things even themselves out over a season" is utter utter utter bollocks of the highest calibre.

http://www.debatabledecisions.com/tables

United are still 7 points clear in a "real" table.

We're 5th in the table, btw, referees have generally been in our favour this season.

I think people should just worry less.

[sipwell]

Oh, and the notion that "these things even themselves out over a season" is utter utter utter bollocks of the highest calibre.

http://www.debatabledecisions.com/tables

United are still 7 points clear in a "real" table.

We're 5th in the table, btw, referees have generally been in our favour this season.

I think people should just worry less.

Penalties are given as a goal. We all know how well Dempsey kicks penalties... 

[BalDrick]

It seems very reasonable to me to incorporate 2 rules (and perhaps it's from being a Yank where American sports get 3 timeouts and unlimited video replays etc)

1. Goal line technology. This is a no brainer.

2. One appeal per team per game to appeal against or argue for a penalty decision with video replay. This would keep managers from appealing every decision, but bringing an element of fairness to the game.

No need for an appeal system though - play on and the 4th official can review it, radio the ref and say 'go back, that was a pen'.

It's all the other layers people try to bring to this debate that obfuscate the issue IMO.

What if the ball stays in play and goes upfield and a goal is scored and then the 4th official says it was a penalty at the other end?  ;-)

Play is called back, what else could happen? The bigger picture is the level playing field surely isn't it?

I thought of the same idea, but upon review I found a stumbling block.

As you mentioned, what if a goal ensues between the incident and the penalty being given, then the play is called back, and I would imagine the other goal disallowed as it didn't actually occur.
Another scenario: The incident happens, but this time, whilst the video ref is reviewing it, a foul is committed that causes a red card to be shown. If the play is called back to the penalty, then, by the same logic as the disallowed goal, the red card could not have happened either. If that is accepted, what if the red card was for a foul on a player that broke his leg. How would that be dealt with?

The reason the video ref has been successful in games such as American Football and Rugby, is simply because the play has stopped at that point, thus a natural break. This doesn't happen in football so often, and so either the play has to be stopped for the review, or the mess (as shown above) is a distinct possibility.

I do not believe, apart from goal-line technology, that there is a good way of dealing with this that would not adversely affect the natural flow of the game. And before we think this is a modern phenomena, cast you minds back almost 50 years, and think what happened then, and where. Nothing actually has changed, except the speed of the play has gotten faster, but bad or incorrect refereeing decisions have been with us for at least my lifetime, and perhaps as much as any member here.

Well in games that have been abandoned, bookings stand but goals don't - not unlike the (latest) Rangers red card in fact where the player fouled was in an offside position. So don't really see the problem in your scenario.

Once this ruling is put in place, all teams and managers will be made fully aware of what is happening and will be asked to play on in the usual manner until the 4th official makes a decision. I genuinely don't see where there is a problem with this. Equally I fully expect it never to happen because it'll never get agreed upon by the big clubs as they're the ones who benefit at the moment from the crooked state of affairs.