DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22845--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: November 9, 2020, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And staying off topic, I wonder if any of you long in the tooth
like me remember a Scottish series on BBC back in the 70's
called Sutherland's Law, with Ian Cuthbertson in the leading
role. I also liked the theme tune, Land of the Mountain and the
Flood.
A lot to be said for Not Proven. That could certainly have
applied to the contentious offside against Bamford where I've
not yet seen a photo or red vertical line to the extremity of
the hidden defender's backside to show if it protruded beyond
Bamford's arm. Difficult to assert offside is factual if you
don't have all the facts.
#Post#: 22849--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: REDSTRIPE
Date: November 9, 2020, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TVOS link ---
>
> On the other hand, in the FA Cup, Torquay have just lost 5-6
at home to Crawley.
>
--- End Quote ---
Proper football that we all love...
Stop spoiling football you 'top' officials............and sack
Mike Riley
#Post#: 22850--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: November 9, 2020, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Whistleblower link ---
>
> I have very little knowledge of Scottish jurisprudence but the
Not Proven verdict has always somewhat intrigued me. One rather
cynical interpretation of it runs " we're pretty darn sure you
did it but it's too circumstantial; there just isn't the
concrete evidence to put it beyond all reasonable doubt" I
apologise if this is a prime example of English bias !
>
> i have sometimes thought that a Not Proven sanction could be
used on the football field. An orange card, two of which ( over
any number of games ) would lead to a one game ban.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: Ref Fan link ---
>
> A lot to be said for Not Proven. That could certainly have
applied to the contentious offside against Bamford where I've
not yet seen a photo or red vertical line to the extremity of
the hidden defender's backside to show if it protruded beyond
Bamford's arm. Difficult to assert offside is factual if you
don't have all the facts.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think of it as lying between "balance of probabilities" and
"beyond reasonable doubt" - so not far off your descriptor. The
fault with it in my view (before the removal of the double
jeopardy concept) was that it didn't allow either side to go
back with more evidence to push the verdict in either direction.
That would have given a genuine third verdict rather than what
was seen as a sub-division of not guilty, but blamed by many for
allowing the guilty to go free.
I think the concept of this midway situation in general would be
useful in football - though it would probably be as unpopular as
the not proven verdict in Scotland.
Edited to fix the quote thingamajjigga! bmb
#Post#: 22858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: QuoCob
Date: November 9, 2020, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
>
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=1907.msg22844#msg22844
date=1604928929]
> I have very little knowledge of Scottish jurisprudence but the
Not Proven verdict has always somewhat intrigued me. One rather
cynical interpretation of it runs " we're pretty darn sure you
did it but it's too circumstantial; there just isn't the
concrete evidence to put it beyond all reasonable doubt" I
apologise if this is a prime example of English bias !
>
> i have sometimes thought that a Not Proven sanction could be
used on the football field. An orange card, two of which ( over
any number of games ) would lead to a one game ban.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: Ref Fan link ---
>
> A lot to be said for Not Proven. That could certainly have
applied to the contentious offside against Bamford where I've
not yet seen a photo or red vertical line to the extremity of
the hidden defender's backside to show if it protruded beyond
Bamford's arm. Difficult to assert offside is factual if you
don't have all the facts.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think of it as lying between "balance of probabilities" and
"beyond reasonable doubt" - so not far off your descriptor. The
fault with it in my view (before the removal of the double
jeopardy concept) was that it didn't allow either side to go
back with more evidence to push the verdict in either direction.
That would have given a genuine third verdict rather than what
was seen as a sub-division of not guilty, but blamed by many for
allowing the guilty to go free.
I think the concept of this midway situation in general would be
useful in football - though it would probably be as unpopular as
the not proven verdict in Scotland.
[/quote]
If there is that much doubt, why don't we go with the
umpire/referee/assistants on-field initial decision?.
Edited to fix the quote thingamajjigga! bmb
#Post#: 22866--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: Leggy
Date: November 9, 2020, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: QuoCob link ---
>
> [quote author=Microscopist link=topic=1907.msg22850#msg22850
date=1604936333]
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=1907.msg22844#msg22844
date=1604928929]
> I have very little knowledge of Scottish jurisprudence but the
Not Proven verdict has always somewhat intrigued me. One rather
cynical interpretation of it runs " we're pretty darn sure you
did it but it's too circumstantial; there just isn't the
concrete evidence to put it beyond all reasonable doubt" I
apologise if this is a prime example of English bias !
>
> i have sometimes thought that a Not Proven sanction could be
used on the football field. An orange card, two of which ( over
any number of games ) would lead to a one game ban.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: Ref Fan link ---
>
> A lot to be said for Not Proven. That could certainly have
applied to the contentious offside against Bamford where I've
not yet seen a photo or red vertical line to the extremity of
the hidden defender's backside to show if it protruded beyond
Bamford's arm. Difficult to assert offside is factual if you
don't have all the facts.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think of it as lying between "balance of probabilities" and
"beyond reasonable doubt" - so not far off your descriptor. The
fault with it in my view (before the removal of the double
jeopardy concept) was that it didn't allow either side to go
back with more evidence to push the verdict in either direction.
That would have given a genuine third verdict rather than what
was seen as a sub-division of not guilty, but blamed by many for
allowing the guilty to go free.
I think the concept of this midway situation in general would be
useful in football - though it would probably be as unpopular as
the not proven verdict in Scotland.
[/quote]
If there is that much doubt, why don't we go with the
umpire/referee/assistants on-field initial decision?.
[/quote]
That does become difficult to do now that AR's are being
instructed not to make a decision / judgement in the first place
and wait to see what VAR comes up with.
Edited to fix the quote thingamajjigga! bmb
#Post#: 22868--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: QuoCob
Date: November 9, 2020, 11:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=1907.msg22858#msg22858
date=1604939384]
> [quote author=Microscopist link=topic=1907.msg22850#msg22850
date=1604936333]
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=1907.msg22844#msg22844
date=1604928929]
> I have very little knowledge of Scottish jurisprudence but the
Not Proven verdict has always somewhat intrigued me. One rather
cynical interpretation of it runs " we're pretty darn sure you
did it but it's too circumstantial; there just isn't the
concrete evidence to put it beyond all reasonable doubt" I
apologise if this is a prime example of English bias !
>
> i have sometimes thought that a Not Proven sanction could be
used on the football field. An orange card, two of which ( over
any number of games ) would lead to a one game ban.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: Ref Fan link ---
>
> A lot to be said for Not Proven. That could certainly have
applied to the contentious offside against Bamford where I've
not yet seen a photo or red vertical line to the extremity of
the hidden defender's backside to show if it protruded beyond
Bamford's arm. Difficult to assert offside is factual if you
don't have all the facts.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think of it as lying between "balance of probabilities" and
"beyond reasonable doubt" - so not far off your descriptor. The
fault with it in my view (before the removal of the double
jeopardy concept) was that it didn't allow either side to go
back with more evidence to push the verdict in either direction.
That would have given a genuine third verdict rather than what
was seen as a sub-division of not guilty, but blamed by many for
allowing the guilty to go free.
I think the concept of this midway situation in general would be
useful in football - though it would probably be as unpopular as
the not proven verdict in Scotland.
[/quote]
If there is that much doubt, why don't we go with the
umpire/referee/assistants on-field initial decision?.
[/quote]
That does become difficult to do now that AR's are being
instructed not to make a decision / judgement in the first place
and wait to see what VAR comes up with.
[/quote]
True from a visual/overt display from a spectators perspective,
but the officials including the VAR room would and this could be
displayed on stadium/TV screens before the final decision is
made?
(I don't know what has happened to the quoty thing)
Edited to fix the quote thingamajjigga! bmb
#Post#: 22874--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: November 9, 2020, 1:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> (I don't know what has happened to the quoty thing)
--- End Quote ---
Probably wasn't sure what to do.
#Post#: 22876--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: bmb
Date: November 9, 2020, 1:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: QuoCob link ---
>
>
> (I don't know what has happened to the quoty thing)
>
--- End Quote ---
It is now all fixed!
I am awesome! [emoji13] [emoji23]
#Post#: 22885--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: bruntyboy
Date: November 9, 2020, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=1907.msg22835#msg22835
date=1604917816]
> [quote author=Microscopist link=topic=1907.msg22834#msg22834
date=1604914910]
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=1907.msg22832#msg22832
date=1604909904]
> For years the cry has gone up for consistency, consistency ,
consistency. I never joined that particular clamour because I
had a shrewd idea where it would lead and it was precisely to
the present farcical situation. Sure you can have consistency by
eliminating any form of doubt or interpretation but it results
in a sterile, uninteresting spectacle which we have now where
any proper feeling for the game is slowly being eliminated.
>
> Life is unpredictable and at times random, it's just how it
is. Sometimes it feels as though injustices are perpetrated but
give me that over bland and dull any time. With the advent of
VAR and these draconian rules which must rigorously be applied
on each occasion irrespective of circumstance, then the great
god of consistency is now lauded and worshipped...and what a sad
state of things it has occasioned. For me, top level football is
nowhere near as enjoyable as it once was and I am getting to
have a 'take it or leave it' attitude to it....and I never ever
thought I would say that.
>
--- End Quote ---
That is true, and indeed life would be the poorer, and indeed
would not exist, without some randomness. However. when in
close proximity there are two different decisions, not entirely
decided on randomness it is galling. Two, to my eyes, similar
degrees of contact and the decisions penalise the player who
tries to stay on his feet and reward the other who chooses
simply to collapse in heaps, then it is not just the god of
consistency that is offended but also the god of justice.
[/quote]
Maybe referees should stop penalising every small minute bit of
contact to encourage players to stay on their feet?
[/quote]
But equally, they must punish a foul challenge when the player
does not go down - otherwise they (players and managers) will
continue to believe that they only way that a foul can be
awarded is by hitting the ground (sometimes theatrically!)
[/quote]
On the Sterling challenge it was a clear barge in the back, and
althogh obviously not a penalty, the only (for a change) reason
he fell over was because he lost his balance as a result of the
barge.
#Post#: 22889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leicester v Wolves (A Taylor)
DIR By: ajb95
Date: November 10, 2020, 2:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bruntyboy link ---
>
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=1907.msg22836#msg22836
date=1604919024]
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=1907.msg22835#msg22835
date=1604917816]
> [quote author=Microscopist link=topic=1907.msg22834#msg22834
date=1604914910]
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=1907.msg22832#msg22832
date=1604909904]
> For years the cry has gone up for consistency, consistency ,
consistency. I never joined that particular clamour because I
had a shrewd idea where it would lead and it was precisely to
the present farcical situation. Sure you can have consistency by
eliminating any form of doubt or interpretation but it results
in a sterile, uninteresting spectacle which we have now where
any proper feeling for the game is slowly being eliminated.
>
> Life is unpredictable and at times random, it's just how it
is. Sometimes it feels as though injustices are perpetrated but
give me that over bland and dull any time. With the advent of
VAR and these draconian rules which must rigorously be applied
on each occasion irrespective of circumstance, then the great
god of consistency is now lauded and worshipped...and what a sad
state of things it has occasioned. For me, top level football is
nowhere near as enjoyable as it once was and I am getting to
have a 'take it or leave it' attitude to it....and I never ever
thought I would say that.
>
--- End Quote ---
That is true, and indeed life would be the poorer, and indeed
would not exist, without some randomness. However. when in
close proximity there are two different decisions, not entirely
decided on randomness it is galling. Two, to my eyes, similar
degrees of contact and the decisions penalise the player who
tries to stay on his feet and reward the other who chooses
simply to collapse in heaps, then it is not just the god of
consistency that is offended but also the god of justice.
[/quote]
Maybe referees should stop penalising every small minute bit of
contact to encourage players to stay on their feet?
[/quote]
But equally, they must punish a foul challenge when the player
does not go down - otherwise they (players and managers) will
continue to believe that they only way that a foul can be
awarded is by hitting the ground (sometimes theatrically!)
[/quote]
On the Sterling challenge it was a clear barge in the back, and
althogh obviously not a penalty, the only (for a change) reason
he fell over was because he lost his balance as a result of the
barge.
[/quote]
It was well outside the box so should have been a free kick
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page