-
Posts
-
@emmalush wrote:
@token_male wrote:
only the teams that can afford to have hudreds of multi angled cameras at their ground would benefit from it!
Hundreds?? TV would fund the cameras via the tv deals in the “professional” game.
you think television would fund cameras for every football league team?
92 teams? all being bought cameras by a tv company to enable this rule to come into play?it wouldnt happen only the premier league and the championship would benefit from this ruling
@token_male wrote:
you think television would fund cameras for every football league team?
92 teams? all being bought cameras by a tv company to enable this rule to come into play?No, at most you would only need 46 per weekend. Currently, all the premier league games are covered by several tv cameras. Most championship games have atleast 2 cameras, and all 3rd and 4th division games have atleast 1 camera, so it wouldn’t cost much to fund the rest.
The reason tv companies would pay it, is because fifa being the clever blaggers they are, know tv companies would benefit from this rule system.
Is it fairer to punish someone during the game, like sending them off for cheating, or after the game?
@emmalush wrote:
@matty wrote:
football has been going for 100 years and more, it has survived pretty well so far without it, why have it now, its just another call out to take the game more commercial, leave it as a sport, don’t pish about with it
You like it the way it is, but football didnt start out with referees…humans who were involved in the game (like fifa) decided to change the way it was officiated to make the game run better, tv replays would do the same.
Give me an example of the 4th official spoiling the game?
How the hell the game could become more commercial giving refs more help, and considering the globalisation high standards its at now, wont make the slightest difference.
example.. flowing game, then an innicdent happens, they all stop and wait… sky tv decide to put an advert in while we wait, the decision does’nt prove to be conclusive, we then have 7 mins of injury time, where a team scores in the last min, a manager then complains that we use the tv replays too much, and the game was better off without them
@matty wrote:
example.. flowing game, then an innicdent happens, they all stop and wait… sky tv decide to put an advert in while we wait, the decision does’nt prove to be conclusive, we then have 7 mins of injury time, where a team scores in the last min, a manager then complains that we use the tv replays too much, and the game was better off without them
They tried that on planet idiocy…
Sky or any other tv company would NOT decide things, they would just provide the equipment or finance for it. The reason they would do so, is because this would make their “product” more interesting to the arm chair fan.
It would be down to the FOURTH official (the man who CURRENTLY holds up the electronic injury time board) to speak via a microphone and headset to the ref and NO ONE ELSE that he/she feels the ref made a bad decision, it is then down to the ref to make a decision whether the game should be stopped on the evidence provided by the fourth official.
Understand? Have you any problems with this?
its a sh!t idea, end of topic
*Yawn* how boring :D
Matt and Token are talking sense – Emma as usual is spouting shyte
Over a season the bad calls , errors etc level themselves out
It’s a humna game with human failings – let’s keep it like that
The referee’s decision is final – on the day
When would you stop the game – offsides ???? If the ref blew for offside – then your camera said it wasn’t offside – what happens next
FFS it would never work
There was a shot hit the bar and bounced down (Martins) in a televised Newcastle match – they watched the replay about 2 million times and still haven’t come to a decision as to whether it crossed the line
Let’s keep our human element in the great game
My team – the mighty mackems havent had a penalty for 2 seasons – I have at least 5 penalty shouts at each game – one day we will get on – and probably miss the bloody thing – but that’s football
I love it – keep your silly ideas to politics emma
@drivel wrote:
When would you stop the game – offsides ????
It would be down to the FOURTH official (the man who CURRENTLY holds up the electronic injury time board) to speak via a microphone and headset to the ref and NO ONE ELSE that he/she feels the ref made a bad decision, it is then down to the ref to make a decision whether the game should be stopped on the evidence provided by the fourth official.
There was a shot hit the bar and bounced down (Martins) in a televised Newcastle match – they watched the replay about 2 million times and still haven’t come to a decision as to whether it crossed the line
Then no need to stop the game.
My team – the mighty mackems havent had a penalty for 2 seasons – I have at least 5 penalty shouts at each game – one day we will get on – and probably miss the bloody thing – but that’s football
Would it be football if you didn’t get a clear penalty and it stopped you getting promoted, or cost you relegation?
Why are you against a fair game?
Vidic denied goal because the officials wern’t good enough to notice.
lol…as soon as i saw that i thought about this thread :lol:
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!