|
|
 gary_elton |
|
 Vodka Drinker  Posts: 7,173
Posts Per Day: 1.20
Reputation: 79.43%
Rep Score: +23 / -6
Location: Grimsby
Approval: +1,243
Gold Stars: 6
|
I see Mr.Clattenburg is set to sue Chelsea...... according to this mornings papers....
interesting....
|
| All my pictures , Seem to fade to black and white.... (Reg Dwight) |
|
|
|
|
|
| BIGChris |
|
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 11,800
Posts Per Day: 1.97
Reputation: 74.94%
Rep Score: +70 / -24
Approval: +2,654
Gold Stars: 6
|
Did i hear correctly on the radio this morning that Chelsea's 'evidence' comes from the Portugese speaking Ramires who thinks he heard Geordie Clattenberg say something untoward and he translated it for Obi Mikel
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Rodley Mariner |
|
|
Posts: 7,809
Posts Per Day: 1.36
Reputation: 78.86%
Rep Score: +63 / -17
Location: Farsley, Leeds
Approval: +13,258
Gold Stars: 178
|
I saw two gams on Sunday. In one a perfectly legal goal was disallowed (Liverpool's third) and in another an offside goal was allowed to stand (Man U's third).
I am not having a go at the ref's here because in both cases the decision was highly marginal. But in both cases the decision was wrong. So why do we allow it continue week in and week out? With the benefit of the cameras the correct decision could have been communicated to the ref within seconds. The game had stopped anyway, so it's not as if it would delay matters.
I don't buy the 'it all evens out over a season' argument. That is just wishful thinking. There is no real evidence for it.
Allowing these errors to stand turns the game into a lottery. Sooner or later football will have to wake up to the fact that it's not 1898 anymore. Technology has moved on, and allows the easy and speedy erradication of many refereeing mistakes. Tennis, Rugby, and Cricket have embraced it. Football needs to. Otherwise the game loses credibility.
I disagree with you completely on this. The Liverpool winner was clearly onside but it looked to me like Coates was climbing on the defender. What do you do in this instance? Is a video ref looking at all possible decisions or just line calls because you start having fourth/fifth officials looking for fouls, trying to determine if there's been contact etc then it'll be anything but easy and speedy. The only thing I would have considered video or any type of technology for would have been goal-line and the Ukraine vs England game in the summer moved be to opposing that. In that game, with purely goal-line technology, the Ukraine 'goal' would have been given as it crossed the line despite replays showing the striker was clearly offside and how ludicrous would that be? Referees make errors occasionally in their work, just like players and just like everybody on here I'm sure. They always have and the game has coped absolutely fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
| RonMariner |
|
|
Posts: 7,859
Posts Per Day: 1.42
Reputation: 84.78%
Rep Score: +42 / -7
Approval: +13,814
Gold Stars: 226
|
I disagree with you completely on this. The Liverpool winner was clearly onside but it looked to me like Coates was climbing on the defender. What do you do in this instance? Is a video ref looking at all possible decisions or just line calls because you start having fourth/fifth officials looking for fouls, trying to determine if there's been contact etc then it'll be anything but easy and speedy.
The only thing I would have considered video or any type of technology for would have been goal-line and the Ukraine vs England game in the summer moved be to opposing that. In that game, with purely goal-line technology, the Ukraine 'goal' would have been given as it crossed the line despite replays showing the striker was clearly offside and how ludicrous would that be?
Referees make errors occasionally in their work, just like players and just like everybody on here I'm sure. They always have and the game has coped absolutely fine.
Sorry but I don't get it. We have the technology to eradicate a large proprtion of errors, but we choose not to. Doesn't make any sense. Sure, every one makes mistakes at work, but the difference is that they can usually be corrected. In football it is often obvious that an error has been made, but we allow the wrong decision to stand. (Lampard's 'goal' against Germany for example). Crazy. |
|
|
|
|
|
| grimsby pete |
|
 Exile Posts: 55,749
Posts Per Day: 9.79
Reputation: 81.7%
Rep Score: +126 / -28
Location: Suffolk
Approval: +17,834
Gold Stars: 222
|
Now it turns out Clattenburg called Mikel a monkey,
Was he saying ," you cheeky monkey" replying to a comment or did he say something completely different ??
|
| Over 36 years living in Suffolk but always a mariner.
68 Years following the Town
Life member of Trust
First game April 1955
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cocky |
| November 1, 2012, 10:27am |
|
Snakebite drinker  Posts: 467
Posts Per Day: 0.08
Reputation: 83.41%
Rep Score: +2 / 0
|
Sorry but I don't get it. We have the technology to eradicate a large proprtion of errors, but we choose not to. Doesn't make any sense. Sure, every one makes mistakes at work, but the difference is that they can usually be corrected. In football it is often obvious that an error has been made, but we allow the wrong decision to stand. (Lampard's 'goal' against Germany for example). Crazy.
I think the issue is that yes, the technology is there to review decisions, but how far do you go back. The Liverpool 'goal' on sunday - do you just review the offside decision, or look at a stage in play beyond that with the climbing on the defender, or go back further to see if it was actually a free kick to Liverpool that lead to the ball being played into the box, and before that was the disputed throw in decision 30 second before the free kick awarded correctly? In my opinion, any technologies that remove the game further away from what you see in the park on a Sunday is bad for the sport. I say leave it as it is, if only because if there wasn't controversy this board would be full of pointless polls and 'who's the best Town player called Steve?' type threads. I'd probably go for Sherwood by the way  |
|
|
|
|
|
| barralad |
| November 1, 2012, 10:42am |
|
Mariners Trust
Posts: 13,808
Posts Per Day: 2.32
Reputation: 79.47%
Rep Score: +85 / -22
Approval: +9,299
Gold Stars: 127
|
Did i hear correctly on the radio this morning that Chelsea's 'evidence' comes from the Portugese speaking Ramires who thinks he heard Geordie Clattenberg say something untoward and he translated it for Obi Mikel
Tenuous then?  |
| The aim of argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.
Joseph Joubert. |
|
|
|
|
|
| RoboCod |
| November 1, 2012, 10:43am |
|
Barley Wine Drinker  Posts: 11,420
Posts Per Day: 1.90
Reputation: 78.76%
Rep Score: +70 / -19
Approval: +7,505
|
Just ban Geordie refs. Simple really.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| psgmariner |
| November 1, 2012, 10:53am |
|
|
Posts: 10,122
Posts Per Day: 1.69
Reputation: 73.33%
Rep Score: +39 / -15
Approval: +5,480
Gold Stars: 33
|
From last night:
[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/01/article-2226112-15CABE30000005DC-762_634x407.jpg[/img]
Assume the fan doing it must be Serbian as England doesn't have any racism problems does it?
|
| |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| SlouchyMetal |
| November 1, 2012, 10:56am |
|
Snakebite drinker Posts: 463
Posts Per Day: 0.09
Reputation: 78.12%
Rep Score: +10 / -3
Location: Lincoln
Approval: +8
|
Apparently Clattenburg said "shut up Mikel," which, translated badly by Ramires who cant speak English, into "Shut up Monkey" and because the geordie accent is very strong, i can see where there is gonna be some problems, but Mikel heard nothing whilst stood next to Clattenburg whilst Ramires and Luiz heard it whilst stood a few feet away.
If you watch the video, Clattenburg cautions Mikel and puts a finger to his lips, indicating that Mikel was booked for Dissent, and Clattenburg wants him to shut up.
There we are FA and Metropolitan Police, i have just done the inquiry for you, and it took me 5 minutes.
|
| Party on Wayne |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site Home
News
Football
Season
Database
Club
POM
Contact
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
gary_elton
Logged
