It doesn't need any review system, it just needs the fourth official, watching the replays that t.v has, talking to the  match ref via radio, simply saying to the ref, that was handball or the fella has tried to clean him out, which is quite simply done, considering how long it takes for a ref to sort out some of these melees, then at least the 4th official will be paid for doing something, rather than checking studs, holding up subs numbers or telling a manager to stay in his technical area. all very important jobs i'm sure!

I'm dead against video referees don't want it to be like rugby league.

I was dead against them too, as I've always thought decisions evened themselves out over the season, however this is getting ridiculous. It seems we very rarely get 50/50 decisions, rarely get 60/40, and we are even not getting quite a few stone wall decisions.

Maybe 1 video challenge per team each half, wouldn't take any longer than a substitution.

I think the game is losing its integrity at the moment.

I'm dead against video referees don't want it to be like rugby league.

Still living in the same cave as last year then bobby?

Like in cricket, three calls.

 

So the game could be stopped six times each match?

 

I look forward to Sam Allardyce challenging calls in the 92nd, 93rd and 94th minute of time. That won't suck the fun out of a game at all. How many times per match does the ref, assistant referee and 4th official get to check a play?

 

Not saying it's not workable but it would radically change the game and the reason it works in cricket or NFL is because the play stops after every play. Football is completely different.

I take a stand at the game being run by robots.

 

However it's evident we need more officials in the game and officials that actually do something, they do f**k all in the Champions League.

The FA are going to do nothing about the Barnes tackle and that to me has just proven that there is an agenda against us. Not one mention of them even looking in to it, they are as corrupt as Fifa. As Drogba said 6 years ago in that blatantly fixed game, ‘it's a fu**ing disgrace’.

 

actually there were 3 horrible tackles by that busta & they got progressively worse as he committed them - the one on Brana was a red card offense - the one on Zouma was an assault & the one on Matic isn't part of the game - don't give me this crap that he missed the ball - he as moving in a stepping down motion w/ his boot - he knew wtf he was doing

I expect today's papers were full of stories about the disgusting anti semetic chanting from west ham fans? No? Oh must be coming in tomorrow's. Can someone check to see if collymore has commented on it please.

Still living in the same cave as last year then bobby?

Not a cave no, don't go giving me the I'm right you're wrong crap cause it won't stick.

I don't think its good for the game. I actually believe it will only make the game more tedious, controversy is good for the game now and then. It creates debate for one, font know about you but I'd find it pretty boring going to work Monday morning going see the video ref got everything right again. Video technology coming in will start the death of the game in my opinion.

Not a cave no, don't go giving me the I'm right you're wrong crap cause it won't stick.

I don't think its good for the game. I actually believe it will only make the game more tedious, controversy is good for the game now and then. It creates debate for one, font know about you but I'd find it pretty boring going to work Monday morning going see the video ref got everything right again. Video technology coming in will start the death of the game in my opinion.

i don't think it will, i think it will make it fairer, all this sh*t about it evens itself out over the course of a season, it just needs the 4th official to be doing something other than saying don't come out your area, to managers, the fifth officials in the CL have done jack. they have missed incidents like Saturdays, five feet from them! and as i said earlier when things kick off like they do saturday, the 4th official has enough time to review it without stopping the game, all the ref has to say to the 4th official is, "what was your view of it, i missed it/was unsighted" i'm sure the refs would be in favour as they wouldn't want to seen as a halfwit!

i don't think it will, i think it will make it fairer, all this sh*t about it evens itself out over the course of a season, it just needs the 4th official to be doing something other than saying don't come out your area, to managers, the fifth officials in the CL have done jack. they have missed incidents like Saturdays, five feet from them! and as i said earlier when things kick off like they do saturday, the 4th official has enough time to review it without stopping the game, all the ref has to say to the 4th official is, "what was your view of it, i missed it/was unsighted" i'm sure the refs would be in favour as they wouldn't want to seen as a halfwit!

I'm not against a fourth official doing that but I don't want the face stopping like it dies in Rugby League for every decision

Edited February 23, 201511 yr by Bobbywoodhogan

One thing I've noticed from Saturday's game is the complete change in how the official CFC website & Twitter feed has changed. It used to be diplomatic but after Saturday we've gone right on the offensive, sticking up for ourselves without sounding bitter. Good to see!

One thing I've noticed from Saturday's game is the complete change in how the official CFC website & Twitter feed has changed. It used to be diplomatic but after Saturday we've gone right on the offensive, sticking up for ourselves without sounding bitter. Good to see!

And not before time me thinks!

This article might provide a few laughs:

http://app.caughtoffside.com/?referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ffootball-transfer-rumours.com%2Fvideos-six-incidents-that-prove-chelsea-do-not-have-a-referee-campaign-against-them%2F287015#article/caughtoffside-788264

6. Fair enough, the referee missed that one.

5. It has already been proven that no bite took place, he should get his facts straight.

4. Okay, a bit naughty from Gary Cahill, that was bad, I'll give him that one.

3. The writer says that Cahill fouled someone in this clip, yet no foul was shown, does he even know what he's watching? Cahill dives, but what is the writer getting at here? No penalty was given, so there's no need to post this and lie about a foul.

2. Okay then...clutching at straws I think, moving on.

1. It was a reducer challenge, that was rightly punished with a yellow card, so again, the writer posts a video as evidence, despite the fact that our player was punished...that's nonsensical, what an utter berk. I'll say this, I see a couple of articles every season moaning about player salary's, but if most of these lazy sports journos get paid over £5 a week, then they are being paid £5 too much, I could write better articles than most of them in my sleep.

Edited February 23, 201511 yr by Floyd25

So off the back of the Burnley game I've seen a few pundits etc throw out the argument "let's not forget all of the decisions Chelsea have had go their way".

Now honest question here, have the favourable decisions outweighed the ones that have gone against us?

Off the top of my head we've had 3 penalties not awarded playing against Burnley alone. The Fabregas penalty not given against Southampton, Costa's penalty not given in the league cup at home, decent shouts for penalties against Spurs away and Everton at home.

Decisions gone our way? Cahill is the worst culprit, penalty against Liverpool away for handball, late challenge on Sanchez at home to Arsenal (although he did get away with clattering Courtois himself), when he kicked out at Kane on the floor away to Spurs and avoiding a 2nd yellow for diving at home against Hull (although Costa was wrongly booked for diving in the same match).

This article might provide a few laughs:

http://app.caughtoffside.com/?referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ffootball-transfer-rumours.com%2Fvideos-six-incidents-that-prove-chelsea-do-not-have-a-referee-campaign-against-them%2F287015#article/caughtoffside-788264

6. Fair enough, the referee missed that one.

5. It has already been proven that no bite took place, he should get his facts straight.

4. Okay, a bit naughty from Gary Cahill, that was bad, I'll give him that one.

3. The writer says that Cahill fouled someone in this clip, yet no foul was shown, does he even know what he's watching? Cahill dives, but what is the writer getting at here? No penalty was given, so there's no need to post this and lie about a foul.

2. Okay then...clutching at straws I think, moving on.

1. It was a reducer challenge, that was rightly punished with a yellow card, so again, the writer posts a video as evidence, despite the fact that our player was punished...that's nonsensical, what an utter berk. I'll say this, I see a couple of articles every season moaning about player salary's, but if most of these lazy sports journos get paid over £5 a week, then they are being paid £5 too much, I could write better articles than most of them in my sleep.

 

Maybe the writer is Blue Daze...naw it can't be cause he didn't criticize Mikel

Not surprisingly, after this extract from my earlier post on the thread, I wholeheartedly agree with Jose’s decision to go on Goals on Sunday and, for want of a better phrase, tell it like it is. He has, in effect, sought to return to the debate on his terms [you can take them or leave them Sky] in circumstances that have now moved on from the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ dilemma he clearly faced before taking the plunge, and on to a completely new on-the-front-foot approach. Personally, I applaud him for it and greatly admired his cool/calm handling of all questions, both from inside the studio and online, throughout the programme.

However, in contrast, reaction to his appearance in the print world has, as far as I can gauge so far, been akin to that of a previous lover [of his sheer presence and quote-ability] who feels more than a little slighted at the thought of him favouring the media once again. To use The Times as an example, first we see Matthew Syed throw his weighty scepticism behind the theory that Mourino now has to be regarded as ’a conspiracy theorist par excellence’. This conclusion is reached, presumably, because he couldn’t really shoot down any of Jose’s well-presented Chels mistreatment case without use of the word conspiracy while perched on his own rather barren (as opposed to verdantly grassy) knoll of counter-argument. Quite simply, Syed’s shaky stance [that ALL conspiracy theorists are wrong] was never going to give him a decent shot at his target and mention of David Icke was merely a cheap one that made him look as silly as an ex-ping-pong player who is over-keen to emphasise the pong due to an obvious lack of any ping.

Then, almost in confirmation of my ‘slight’ comment, Matt Hughes stepped up to the plate with this opening paragraph to his match report:-

“Jose is nothing if not a man of extremes. Just a few minutes after responding to seven questions with the stock phrase , “I don’t speak” at Stamford Bridge on Saturday evening, the Chelsea manager was contacting Sky Sports to invite himself on to their flagship highlights programme. James Beattie had been booked and billed as yesterday’s guest, but was swiftly sidelined as you do not say no to Mourinho, which is part of Chelsea’s problem. The Portuguese is so used to getting his own way on and off the pitch that this reaction to any setback is frequently out of all proportion to the original disappointment. Having erroneously complained of a campaign against Chelsea, there is an element of the Boy Who Cried Wolf about Mourinho now that a run of consistently poor refereeing decisions have hurt his team.”

Well, thanks for that Matt, I couldn’t have constructed a more suitable case for treatment [of the slighted] had I tried, especially as, in your very next sentence, you confess that ‘Mourinho had right on his side as he forensically dissected Martin Atkinson’s lamentable performance.’ Call me old-fashioned fable-wise, but didn’t the Boy Who Cried Wolf get all the calls annoyingly wrong except the last one, rather than [undeniably] getting most right, including the last? Moreover, just yesterday in The Sunday Times, didn’t your colleague David Walsh, commenting on the Matic incident, state categorically that Ashley Barnes received a yellow card, and didn’t he state that not just once, but twice? For crying wolf out loud, Matt, I’m really not sure I can trust him to get his reporting right next time, can you?

Okay, maybe that was a recollection out of spite on my part and other Walsh quotes on the game have been used on the official Chelsea website to support the club’s stance, but the next observance by Hughes can only be described as laughable in the extreme. As a preamble to his somewhat muted coverage of the Barnes tackle, he writes:-

"As ever, Mourinho had done his homework, bringing up a little-known incident when Barnes was banned for seven matches, for tripping up Nigel Miller, the referee, during a Championship match between Brighton and Hove Albion and Bolton Wanderers two years ago.”

Word perfect, but, as ever Matt, missing the point by an absolute mile. It should not be up to Jose to do investigative journalism. This is your field mate, and if it’s not beyond the wit of journo man [or men] to find a link between a certain Chelsea fan and a certain political party, surely it’s not beyond the wit of one of your lot to do the sporting equivalent in this instance. Unless, of course, you don’t particularly want to do that in this instance, or your particular’campaign’ lies in a different direction altogether and it doesn’t suit your purpose, or that of your newspaper.

So there you have it, my early post-Jose show experience of the print coverage of the main Premiership event of the weekend and they only serve to justify Jose’s intervention. And, quite frankly for me, that intervention doesn’t come a moment too soon.

Bravo Dorset.

The Guardian, don't even go there. The Torygraph has been unbalanced in its reporting of Saturday's events. Then this, last word of the penultimate paragraph stood out to me. (I've been wondering if there is a north south element in the treatment of Chelsea by the media and others.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11430200/Why-does-everyone-think-its-OK-to-slag-off-Scousers.html

So the game could be stopped six times each match?

 

I look forward to Sam Allardyce challenging calls in the 92nd, 93rd and 94th minute of time. That won't suck the fun out of a game at all. How many times per match does the ref, assistant referee and 4th official get to check a play?

 

Not saying it's not workable but it would radically change the game and the reason it works in cricket or NFL is because the play stops after every play. Football is completely different.

It might stop all these confromtations that take about 2 to 5 min every time to sort out, if you do not trail it you will never find out,

prehaps you can share the same cave with Bobby.

Not a cave no, don't go giving me the I'm right you're wrong crap cause it won't stick.

I don't think its good for the game. I actually believe it will only make the game more tedious, controversy is good for the game now and then. It creates debate for one, font know about you but I'd find it pretty boring going to work Monday morning going see the video ref got everything right again. Video technology coming in will start the death of the game in my opinion.

We can all debate how good the football was & how wonderful that all the right calls where made,

who saying I am right your wrong crap, i am saying if we all thought that we do not need to welcome progress and technology we all would be living in caves,

No! the death of the game will come when some myopic ref keeps turning appeals down that are a given, still if your enjoy controvesy

so you can chat about incompetent refs missing a another nailed on discision, what ever floats you boat.

Me personally would rather win or lose by a rightful discision not someone guessing or holding a grudge by decising the outcome.

Got this from a bloke on Facebook.

You know you're that best when even the refs are against you.

hi foxes first post  here, glad to be among blues brothers

 

i recently left london after twenty years ,i miss many things of the "blue" london but there's one thing i don't miss a bit ...the bloody f.a. and its thuggish,dirty malevolent manners and hidden agenda

 

in every other league in the world the corrupted side is the clubs, teams and players, and local federations trying to fix the problems....but not here ,,,,,not in uk, here the clubs and players are a fantastic example to the world in honesty and integrity and the dirty and corrupted side here is the local football association infecting what of pure and noble is left in "OUR FOOTBALL" not theirs, they should be guardians ,they're not , they're manipulators and dictators ...at best...

 

the f.a. hidden agenda (not so hidden really) spearhead  through the....."northern army media mafia"  is...

 

totalling "sanitizing" football the way they want it , not for the first time really…….terraces were no so bad...

 

total submission  through punishment of real characters who speaks their minds (JOSE) stuffing  the not obedient to assert authority

 

helping teams, equalizing situations  and managing  poor ref.  to increase interest and therefore greater economical returned 

 

and last but not list considering england as  the country of polically correct why no put this  wonderfull "application" into football ,,sure now the f.a. is going to forge a new term "footballicaly correct".... sure... correct .....but always the way suit them and annex interest and teams

 

the way chelsea mourinho and our self had been treated not only stinks and is disgraceful but epitomize what the f.a. should really fight and serve for ...

STILL HURTS THE WAY WE'VE BEEN TREATED AFTER THE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE ,,MEDIA AND F.A.   UNTI PATRIOTIC …AT BEST  

 

not wonder guys that with this lot english football is no proceted …no wonder from 1966 the f.a. has keept falling …

 

bloody clowns they only want people like graham taylor …should learn from JOSE THE KING  if they want to win soon o later ….

It might stop all these confromtations that take about 2 to 5 min every time to sort out, if you do not trail it you will never find out,

prehaps you can share the same cave with Bobby.

 

Although I'm sure Bobby is a lovely chap, I'm not sure that's an enticing living situation.

 

But to take your point that we're luddites afraid of change, I think we're both of the opinion that technology is not a bad thing so long as it doesn't affect the game. The beauty of goal-line technology is that it doesn't affect the running of the game and gives a definitive answer to a yes/no question.

 

That's completely different from what some of the technology some are suggesting here would do. I like the idea of a coach's challenge in theory, and I would suggest that (similar to the NFL) you might lose a substitution if your appeal fails. But at the same time people who say 'use it like rugby/NFL/tennis/cricket' need to understand that football is a completely different game to these. Each of these games STOPS after a phase of play, whereas is football even throw-ins and corners don't really halt the pace of the game. The clock continues running for one thing so to insert something new must be done in a way that doesn't affect the rhythm of the game.

 

That's what us 'technophobes' are saying.

I think there is technology available that will give correct offside decisions instantly, so for me that should be implemented.

I do like the idea of losing a substitution if a challenge is unsuccessful. Realistically if we had technology dealing with offsides, then the only challenges wold be for penalty decisions or red cards.

I don't think the process would take longer than a minute. In some cases such as challenging a penalty or red that has been given, there is a sufficient break in play to challenge the decision.

In cases where a red card or penalty hasn't been given, do we really need to stop and wait for the challenge decision, or could play continue, and if a challenge is successful, the ref pulls the play back for a penalty, or red cards the player and gives a free kick. If unsuccessful the play just continues.

I'm all for tech that gives correct offside decisions but I don't want the game stopping when someone's been taken out and they're deciding whether it's a pen or a dive. A little technology is a good thing but a lot will ruin the game imo.

It might stop all these confromtations that take about 2 to 5 min every time to sort out, if you do not trail it you will never find out,

prehaps you can share the same cave with Bobby.

Perhaps you can f**k off then!

Sayibg I live in a cave cause I'm against too much tech, you say you aren't doing the I'm right you're wrong crap well you pretty much are with your attitude.

Edited February 24, 201511 yr by Bobbywoodhogan