We like to think that a video ref would have ensured we got a fair deal on Wednesday. Most people seem to think we should have had at least one pen, although I've read and heard (in open-mouthed disbelief) some people argue that every single decision was debatable.

Here's two opinions from the Daily Heil, from Redknapp jnr and Townsend:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-questions.html

How many penalties should have been awarded to Chelsea?

JAMIE: Three. Daniel Alves on Florent Malouda was a penalty. There was the handball by Gerard Pique, then Michael Ballack's shot which hit Samuel Eto'o deep into injury time. Yes, he had little time to react but watch Eto'o - he was jumping with his hands raised to block the shot. That invites a penalty.

ANDY: Two. There's no chance the late Ballack strike was a penalty, absolutely no chance. It's ball to hand and what chance does Eto'o have to get out of the way? The foul on Malouda and the Pique handball were both stone-wall penalties. As for the foul on Didier Drogba, if he didn't spend so much time rolling around on the floor, he might get the odd decision.

Now these guys have seen the same footage as me and you and neither of them think Drogba's was a pen. This is utterly beyond belief, as he not only had his shirt pulled but had his legs clipped from behind. Townsend thinks it 's not a pen ' because he spends so much time rolling around on the floor'. Redknapp doesn't even think it was worth discussing.

Imagine if that had been referred to the video ref and he'd reached the same decision as those two ex-players and now professional analysts. A video ref who looked at shirt pulling and a tangle of legs and decided it was no pen, largely because of who the player is.

This whole business has really done my head in. I am just dumbfounded by the views I've read and heard.

Did anyone see this page on the Times site?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/200...oey-barton.html

[On other pages: who is worse, Michael Ballack or Adolf Hitler?]

Anyway - video refs, anyone?

Edited May 8, 200916 yr by Backbiter

Whats pissed me off is that the whole penalties debate and the refs performance seem to already have been swept under the carpet. All people seem to be talking about is Drogbas reaction.

Has to be.

Absolutely. The only argument against having video review is that is slows down the game, but there are plenty of stoppages during critical decisions that would give the video official time to review.

Also they should look in to goal line technology. It is so simple, its amazing they don't have it yet.

Edit -- Also since the video official is up somewhere in the stands he is separated from the fans, and less influenced by the crowd.

Edited May 8, 200916 yr by blueday3

Apparently Manure are going to show video footage to UEFA to show that it would be an injustice that ONE of their players won't be playing in the final, due to ONE error by a referee.

Only ONE? I can think of a club whose ENTIRE SQUAD have a pretty strong case to make to UEFA, based on more than a SINGLE error by an official.

The only argument against having video review is that is slows down the game, but there are plenty of stoppages during critical decisions that would give the video official time to review.

Yes, and I would also like to see it integrated like how the NFL decisions are made.

Managers get two challenges a game. If they alert the 4th ref they want a challenge, game stops and the video ref reviews within a set time (a minute or so). If a manager wins both challenges they get a 3rd.

ive never understood this argument about the game stopping. it doesnt really have to stop does it? just carry on the game while someone quickly reviews the footage and makes his decision. the ref can then stop the game and implement whatever the video ref has decided.

That wouldn't work so much in the case for a penalty though would it? That would just be awkward to be playing and then have to just stop and go to the other side of the pitch for a penalty.

I wouldn't mind bringing in goal line technology. But that's a black and white issue: either the ball crossed the line or it didn't and surely the ref could alerted in a matter of seconds.

But a lot of other issues in football are very subjective and I don't see how video refs will resolve them: was a handball ball to hand or hand to ball? Was a player interfering with play? Suppose a video ref takes the same view as Townsend and decides that decides that because it's Drogba he must be diving (and for the conspiracy theorists among us, who will be in charge of appointing these refs? - UEFA!).

Yes, and I would also like to see it integrated like how the NFL decisions are made.

Managers get two challenges a game. If they alert the 4th ref they want a challenge, game stops and the video ref reviews within a set time (a minute or so). If a manager wins both challenges they get a 3rd.

I like that idea. It won't slow the game down too much as it'll only be a max of 6 stops at a minute each. Good plan :)

2 stone wall pens ref was a plum!!!

Yes, and I would also like to see it integrated like how the NFL decisions are made.

Managers get two challenges a game. If they alert the 4th ref they want a challenge, game stops and the video ref reviews within a set time (a minute or so). If a manager wins both challenges they get a 3rd.

I like this idea as well. Just add any challenge time on as extra time to each half's stoppage time.

It's working pretty well for the NFL, I don't see why it wouldn't work here.

It's a great idea, but UEFA will not let it happen. :angry: