31-01-2019, 00:11
(This post was last modified: 31-01-2019, 00:41 by SaltergateBorn.)
I`m all for introducing any new rules and/or system of refereeing that makes the game cleaner, fairer and more watchable and, yes, makes the referees` job easier. Unfortunately, just introducing such things isn`t enough; they also have to be consistently applied and persevered with in the face of the inevitable reactionary response from the media and the self- appointed 'experts', namely the TV pundits. The current furore over VAR is a classic example. Nearly every 'expert' seems to be jumping on the bandwagon to decry it and ridicule it when, to me, it makes perfect sense to use whatever technology is available to get the right decision. Ok, it`s far from perfect as yet, but it will be refined and improved over time.
I can remember when the rule was brought in that prevented `keepers picking up the ball from a back-pass and the frenzy that the likes of Alan Hansen - who was, of course, a defender - went into; it was rubbish, nonsense, should be scrapped, etc etc etc. Now it`s accepted as part of the game and has, I think most people would agree, improved the game by reducing at least slightly a team`s capacity for time-wasting.
I was just as enthusiastic when the regulation was supposedly brought in a few years ago to the effect that any back-chat to the referee would be penalised by a free-kick and that any free-kick already awarded would be moved forward 10 metres; it`s a system that`s proved very effective in both codes of rugby for some years now. I was really looking forward to watching games without having to see players surrounding the referee, trying to get other players booked and dismissed and the like. I was sadly disappointed. It was scrapped after a couple of years 'because it wasn`t effective' according to the authorities. It wasn`t effective for the simple reason that it wasn`t enforced! If it had been, there would undoubtedly have been absolute mayhem for a couple of months, but eventually it would have been accepted as part of the game, just as the back-pass rule has. We all know that in general footballers (and I include coaches, pundits etc) aren`t the most intelligent primates on the planet, but the message would have got through eventually.
My personal pet gripe these days is the time intentionally wasted by teams feigning injury, dragging out substitutions, delaying goal-kicks etc. when they`re winning so as to run down the clock. 'Game management' is the preferred euphemism in some quarters I believe, but to me it`s just another way of cheating. I read somewhere recently that one of the footballing authorities (I think it was UEFA) is suggesting reducing the duration of a game to 60 minutes, which has been calculated to be about the length of time the ball is actually in play in the average game, but stopping the clock every time the ball goes out of play or play has to be stopped. That would make time-wasting a hell of a lot more difficult and personally I would love to see it tried out. I doubt whether it ever will be though.
Myself, I`ve always been fascinated by the NFL system of having multiple referees on the pitch; one head ref (umpire) and a number of assistants. I agree with you, Dev, that the speed of the modern game makes it almost impossible for anybody with less than Superman powers to keep up with it all the time; a similar system in football would seem to be worth a try. Mind you, linesmen are technically 'assistant referees' now anyway apparently and should already be doing this. I wish somebody had told the 'assistant referees' about this on Saturday; I didn`t see a lot of assisting going on.
There are flaws in the way football is played these days - some of them quite serious flaws - that all of us who love the game would desperately like to see remedied. The thought of football returning to its original Corinthian values and becoming just a game again is a lovely idea, but unfortunately it`s just not going to happen. It has too much global commercial power and there is way, way too much money to be made out of it by too many people. Not gonna happen, I`m afraid.
I can remember when the rule was brought in that prevented `keepers picking up the ball from a back-pass and the frenzy that the likes of Alan Hansen - who was, of course, a defender - went into; it was rubbish, nonsense, should be scrapped, etc etc etc. Now it`s accepted as part of the game and has, I think most people would agree, improved the game by reducing at least slightly a team`s capacity for time-wasting.
I was just as enthusiastic when the regulation was supposedly brought in a few years ago to the effect that any back-chat to the referee would be penalised by a free-kick and that any free-kick already awarded would be moved forward 10 metres; it`s a system that`s proved very effective in both codes of rugby for some years now. I was really looking forward to watching games without having to see players surrounding the referee, trying to get other players booked and dismissed and the like. I was sadly disappointed. It was scrapped after a couple of years 'because it wasn`t effective' according to the authorities. It wasn`t effective for the simple reason that it wasn`t enforced! If it had been, there would undoubtedly have been absolute mayhem for a couple of months, but eventually it would have been accepted as part of the game, just as the back-pass rule has. We all know that in general footballers (and I include coaches, pundits etc) aren`t the most intelligent primates on the planet, but the message would have got through eventually.
My personal pet gripe these days is the time intentionally wasted by teams feigning injury, dragging out substitutions, delaying goal-kicks etc. when they`re winning so as to run down the clock. 'Game management' is the preferred euphemism in some quarters I believe, but to me it`s just another way of cheating. I read somewhere recently that one of the footballing authorities (I think it was UEFA) is suggesting reducing the duration of a game to 60 minutes, which has been calculated to be about the length of time the ball is actually in play in the average game, but stopping the clock every time the ball goes out of play or play has to be stopped. That would make time-wasting a hell of a lot more difficult and personally I would love to see it tried out. I doubt whether it ever will be though.
Myself, I`ve always been fascinated by the NFL system of having multiple referees on the pitch; one head ref (umpire) and a number of assistants. I agree with you, Dev, that the speed of the modern game makes it almost impossible for anybody with less than Superman powers to keep up with it all the time; a similar system in football would seem to be worth a try. Mind you, linesmen are technically 'assistant referees' now anyway apparently and should already be doing this. I wish somebody had told the 'assistant referees' about this on Saturday; I didn`t see a lot of assisting going on.
There are flaws in the way football is played these days - some of them quite serious flaws - that all of us who love the game would desperately like to see remedied. The thought of football returning to its original Corinthian values and becoming just a game again is a lovely idea, but unfortunately it`s just not going to happen. It has too much global commercial power and there is way, way too much money to be made out of it by too many people. Not gonna happen, I`m afraid.