iphone Rugby vs Tin Can and String Football
-
mrmcfister
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
iphone Rugby vs Tin Can and String Football
Another ridiculous result last night when a clear Evertyon goal not seen by officials.Whilst Rugby Refs can speak to off field officials who can review TV footage including the whole of the 'scoring' play, football with it's fucking head up it's arse dinosaurs trot along in the 1970s.Players,managers snd supporters deserve better than this in 2012.
Re: iphone Rugby vs Tin Can and String Football
mrmcfister wrote:
football with it's fucking head up it's arse
> dinosaurs trot along in the 1970s.Players,managers snd
> supporters deserve better than this in 2012.
Blatter and Platini with their heads up their arses. They're the only ones against technology, unfortunately, they have the power. Indeed, Platini has stated that incidents like last nights 'goal' are the essence of the game and are in fact a good thing.
football with it's fucking head up it's arse
> dinosaurs trot along in the 1970s.Players,managers snd
> supporters deserve better than this in 2012.
Blatter and Platini with their heads up their arses. They're the only ones against technology, unfortunately, they have the power. Indeed, Platini has stated that incidents like last nights 'goal' are the essence of the game and are in fact a good thing.
We have need of you again, great king.
-
Bob Singleton
- Posts: 1975
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: iphone Rugby vs Tin Can and String Football
While I am in favour of bringing in things such as goal line technology, there is a basic difference between rugby and football.
In rugby, when the ball goes over the try line, there is a "natural break" in the game... whatever the ultimate decision, play has ceased. The ref is essentially asking, do I award a try (if the ball has been grounded correctly) or do we restart with either a 5m scrum (if the ball has been held up by the defending side) or a 22 drop out (if the ball has been knocked on or lost by the attacking side)? In football, it may be a case of the ball crossing/not crossing the line with a defender clearing. A counter attack may then ensue which results in a goal at the other end. A replay may later show that the ball did not cross the line the first time, meaning the second goal was OK. But if you stop the game to review the footage, that chance to counter attack has gone.
Until fool-proof goal line technology is introduced, you cannot justify stopping a game in mid flow to check on VT
In rugby, when the ball goes over the try line, there is a "natural break" in the game... whatever the ultimate decision, play has ceased. The ref is essentially asking, do I award a try (if the ball has been grounded correctly) or do we restart with either a 5m scrum (if the ball has been held up by the defending side) or a 22 drop out (if the ball has been knocked on or lost by the attacking side)? In football, it may be a case of the ball crossing/not crossing the line with a defender clearing. A counter attack may then ensue which results in a goal at the other end. A replay may later show that the ball did not cross the line the first time, meaning the second goal was OK. But if you stop the game to review the footage, that chance to counter attack has gone.
Until fool-proof goal line technology is introduced, you cannot justify stopping a game in mid flow to check on VT
"But how to make Liverpool economically prosperous? If only there was some way for Liverpudlians to profit from going on and on about the past in a whiny voice."
- Stewart Lee
- Stewart Lee
Re: iphone Rugby vs Tin Can and String Football
Bob Singleton wrote:
>
> Until fool-proof goal line technology is introduced, you cannot
> justify stopping a game in mid flow to check on VT
It's not a VT check in goal line though, in this instance, with the proposed technology, the ball crossing the line would have signalled the refs arm buzzer, and he'd have stopped the game, awarding a goal. If the ball hadn't crossed the line, he'd have got no signal and played on. I think the demand with goal line technology is that decision is made live, within one second.
>
> Until fool-proof goal line technology is introduced, you cannot
> justify stopping a game in mid flow to check on VT
It's not a VT check in goal line though, in this instance, with the proposed technology, the ball crossing the line would have signalled the refs arm buzzer, and he'd have stopped the game, awarding a goal. If the ball hadn't crossed the line, he'd have got no signal and played on. I think the demand with goal line technology is that decision is made live, within one second.
We have need of you again, great king.