Joined: Aug 05 2002 Posts: 14094 Location: He can smoke a pound in a single bound!
Stand-Offish wrote:It's not a question of how far back.
But it is, it was in SL until they brought the rule in about only being able to go back to the last play the ball and that works well. Football doesn't have that break in play that is almost guaranteed to be within a minute of the try.
Quote:You don't go back to fouls that occurred in back play....just has the ref doesn't now....all fouls are for the ref to sort out....but ones in the penalty area were a penalty is given should be looked at and the ref advised. Only because people cheat and dive.
Why not? They are incidents that happen in the build up to a goal, where is your cut off point? Do you allow a foul that immediately allows a cross into the box that leads to a goal, but not a foul that means the player can head it into the goal?
Quote:Outside the box it doesn't matter...it can be just as now.
See above example as to how it does.
Quote:I am not asking for a major revamp and for every little thing to be scrutinised. I just want the ref to be helped to get the big things right, because for one they need help in what is a very difficult task and for two we have the technology to help them get it right.
I agree, it should be brought in.
Quote:FIFA object on costs grounds .....but really?
Nope, it's a p1ss poor excuse.
Quote:What is wrong with trialing it? Particularly at a major competition. If it proves to be more trouble than it's worth....then rethink it or drop it. But someone saying it won't work...is not really a scientific way of deciding.
Nothing, it should be brought in, but IMO the way you propose won't work.
I'm not Jesus Christ, I've come to accept that now.
[quote][b]XBrettKennyX wrote:[/b] Once more the anti SC brigade, purposely or otherwise fail to see the point.
Joined: Aug 05 2002 Posts: 14094 Location: He can smoke a pound in a single bound!
Robbie Rotten wrote:But that is the problem and this is where managers will complain. They will start saying 'the technology is available, why should we accept human error now?', because managers will always moan about every decision, whether it's something that leads to a goal, a second yellow, a straight red or his player being given offside for a good chance. Why should this technology only be available to goals when we can try and get every other decision spot on? Why is human error acceptable for every other big decision, other than goals?
I'm all for technology, but there will be huge problems if mistake after mistake is accepted whilst the technology is available. I mean, look at that Kaka red card the other week, should that just be accepted when we have a ref who can look at a replay and see nothing was wrong? Once the video official is brought in, managers will want it for every decision, because every decision in football can change a game and if the technology is available, why shouldn't they be able to use it?
That's why I think the NFL way is the best way to introduce it. Give each manager a set amount of challenges, if they are right they keep them, if they are wrong and use it frivolously they lose one. That would allow contentious decisions to be looked at but should prevent requests for everything to be looked at.
I'm not Jesus Christ, I've come to accept that now.
[quote][b]XBrettKennyX wrote:[/b] Once more the anti SC brigade, purposely or otherwise fail to see the point.
Joined: Feb 18 2006 Posts: 18610 Location: Somewhere in Bonny Donny (Twinned with Krakatoa in 1883).
Billinge_Lump wrote:But it is, it was in SL until they brought the rule in about only being able to go back to the last play the ball and that works well. Football doesn't have that break in play that is almost guaranteed to be within a minute of the try.
Why not? They are incidents that happen in the build up to a goal, where is your cut off point? Do you allow a foul that immediately allows a cross into the box that leads to a goal, but not a foul that means the player can head it into the goal?
See above example as to how it does.
I agree, it should be brought in.
Nope, it's a p1ss poor excuse.
Nothing, it should be brought in, but IMO the way you propose won't work.
Well at least you think it should be brought in, in some form. I don't know what the format should be, and I can see your concerns. But these are details...the fundamental thrust is we must stop cheating like handling the ball into the net, diving to gain a penalty and we must stop disallowing perfectly good goals.
At the end of the day, someone will still have to make a judgment and so it won't be perfect....but I think it will be less imperfect.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
Joined: Mar 07 2007 Posts: 7121 Location: Warrington
MrPhilb wrote:I think he's alot like Hleb actually
I dunno. I think he's best as a winger, isolating full backs, cutting in or taking it to the byline. Hlen I feel was at his best in the middle, running at the centre backs with the ball glued to his feet then playing others in. Hleb's biggest problem was he never shot/scored enough, I think Johnson has the ability to score a lot of goals from the wings, particularly if he plays on the right more than the left.
England need a midfielder to operate in 'the hole', I think Wilshere will be the player who eventually does this and he'll do it well, but playing 4-4-2 isn't working. The 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1, whatever you want to call it, seems to be the way to go at international level. Brazil use it, Spain are now kinda using it, Germany use it, the Argie's kinda use it at times. But having two, disciplined midfielders, one preferably a ball winner, the other a 'quarterback', seems to be the way to go, with a playmaker just ahead of them. I've said before, I'd love to see Hargreaves and Carrick together for England, but I question Carrick's ability to pull the strings.
Joined: Aug 05 2002 Posts: 14094 Location: He can smoke a pound in a single bound!
Robbie Rotten wrote:I dunno. I think he's best as a winger, isolating full backs, cutting in or taking it to the byline. Hlen I feel was at his best in the middle, running at the centre backs with the ball glued to his feet then playing others in. Hleb's biggest problem was he never shot/scored enough, I think Johnson has the ability to score a lot of goals from the wings, particularly if he plays on the right more than the left.
England need a midfielder to operate in 'the hole', I think Wilshere will be the player who eventually does this and he'll do it well, but playing 4-4-2 isn't working. The 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1, whatever you want to call it, seems to be the way to go at international level. Brazil use it, Spain are now kinda using it, Germany use it, the Argie's kinda use it at times. But having two, disciplined midfielders, one preferably a ball winner, the other a 'quarterback', seems to be the way to go, with a playmaker just ahead of them. I've said before, I'd love to see Hargreaves and Carrick together for England, but I question Carrick's ability to pull the strings.
Carrick's not good enough, Barry would be better alongside Hargreaves IMO. I accept he had a poor World Cup, but he isn't fit.
I'm not Jesus Christ, I've come to accept that now.
[quote][b]XBrettKennyX wrote:[/b] Once more the anti SC brigade, purposely or otherwise fail to see the point.
Joined: Oct 15 2003 Posts: 53839 Location: North Yorkshire
Robbie Rotten wrote:IEngland need a midfielder to operate in 'the hole', I think Wilshere will be the player who eventually does this and he'll do it well, but playing 4-4-2 isn't working. The 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1, whatever you want to call it, seems to be the way to go at international level. Brazil use it, Spain are now kinda using it, Germany use it, the Argie's kinda use it at times. But having two, disciplined midfielders, one preferably a ball winner, the other a 'quarterback', seems to be the way to go, with a playmaker just ahead of them. I've said before, I'd love to see Hargreaves and Carrick together for England, but I question Carrick's ability to pull the strings.
Hargreaves is the best ball winning midfielder we have and would walk into that role if he was fit. As for the quarterback option I always felt that would have been perfect for Beckham later on in his career. I feel Carrick could also do that job well, he has the range of passing. Maybe Rodwell could take up one of those two positions or Huddlestone in the near future.
Craig Eastmond at Arsenal will be a good player IMO. In fact Arsenal's English youngsters, contrary to popular belief, are going to form an important part of the England squad in the coming years in my opinion. As of last year their academy had a higher percentage of English players in it than any other Premiership club.
GCM1980 wrote:Craig Eastmond at Arsenal will be a good player IMO. In fact Arsenal's English youngsters, contrary to popular belief, are going to form an important part of the England squad in the coming years in my opinion. As of last year their academy had a higher percentage of English players in it than any other Premiership club.
They just won't be playing for Arsenal
HULL KINGSTON ROVERS is my religion, Craven Park is my church and Jordan Abdull is my God
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
