the ref just ignored it

 

typical - so if the player is wearing the Royal Blue of CFC then it's an automatic sending off - anyone else free pass

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2964317/Jose-Mourinho-right-Chelsea-comments-Goals-Sunday.html

 

Martin Samuel clearly with an agenda calling Mourinho 'one-eyed' when Jose clearly has two eyes. Should sue.

When oh when are the PL going to front up and force the FAs hand, and make Referees accountable for monumental cock-ups, Atkinson should be court martailed for dereliction of duty.....

I dont trust any referees in the premier league to do their job properly anymore, not one. The game needs video refs.

I dont trust any referees in the premier league to do their job properly anymore, not one. The game needs video refs.

 

What, during matches? 

Yes

Yes

 

At whose discretion?

Every single week there is just more proof to me that there is something ‘rotten’ regarding the FA and our club.

Are we to believe that the referees are terrible in almost every other game regarding us?

How many bans, leg breakers, ‘dives’, pens not given etc do we need to go through for something to be done?

There's been quite a bit of mention and reporting about the use of and need for video technology. A comparison was made with US football and how they have maintained the integrity of their game.

At whose discretion?

A panel of video refs, who can clearly see incidents on the V like everyone else at home. It works.

At whose discretion?

 

Each manager could get the opportunity to request a decision to be video reviewed by the 4th official. 

 

You could have have a pre-set number (3 for example) of times that you can request a referral, once they've all been used tough luck. 

 

The decision could be reviewed the next time the ball goes out of play. 

 

That's just an example of how video technology could be used to assist the officiating of the game. 

If we don't have (technological) assistance the beautiful game will become arbitrary. The game is faster, much faster, players more skilled, or differently skilled; refs need help.

A panel of video refs, who can clearly see incidents on the V like everyone else at home. It works.

It also works for other sports.

Every single week there is just more proof to me that there is something ‘rotten’ regarding the FA and our club.

 

 

I think that's just factually incorrect. I thought Moss did well in the games he had with us recently, thought Clattenburg handled the City game with little controversy, thought Swarbrick controlled the Villa game well and even East was fine in the Newcastle game.

 

 

A panel of video refs, who can clearly see incidents on the V like everyone else at home. It works.

 

Each manager could get the opportunity to request a decision to be video reviewed by the 4th official. 

 

You could have have a pre-set number (3 for example) of times that you can request a referral, once they've all been used tough luck. 

 

The decision could be reviewed the next time the ball goes out of play. 

 

That's just an example of how video technology could be used to assist the officiating of the game. 

 

So that's two different systems if I'm not mistaken.

 

I'm not opposed to it I just think it has to be used in a way that doesn't change the game too much. Football isn't like rugby or NFL where it's much more stop-start and that's part of it's appeal. We don't have time-outs or breaks in play. I think the idea of a coach's challenge-type system is perhaps the most workable.

 

It also works for other sports.

Sports which are vastly different on the whole.

I think that's just factually incorrect. I thought Moss did well in the games he had with us recently, thought Clattenburg handled the City game with little controversy, thought Swarbrick controlled the Villa game well and even East was fine in the Newcastle game.

Well I don't share that view.

The vast majority of our games have seen 'strange' calls and for the msot part they have went against us.

I'll continue to keep this view until I see something changing in that respect regarless of others opinions on it.

Well I don't share that view.

The vast majority of our games have seen 'strange' calls and for the msot part they have went against us.

I'll continue to keep this view until I see something changing in that respect regarless of others opinions on it.

 

Which view? Which of the refs' performances that I mentioned do you think I was wrong about? You're absolutely entitled to your view but I'm always interested to see how others perceive refs performances.

I think that's just factually incorrect. I thought Moss did well in the games he had with us recently, thought Clattenburg handled the City game with little controversy, thought 

 

I'm not opposed to it I just think it has to be used in a way that doesn't change the game too much. Football isn't like rugby or NFL where it's much more stop-start and that's part of it's appeal. We don't have time-outs or breaks in play. I think the idea of a coach's challenge-type system is perhaps the most workable.

 

I think if video reviews in game are to be introduced then, initially at least, they need to be restricted in how much they can be used. 

 

Like you say you don't want the pace and rhythm of the game to be distrusted heavily. 

 

Taking the Costa penalty appeal against Burnley as an example as soon as the appeal isn't given then Mourinho indicates to the 4th official he wants to contest it. This is relayed to referee who then waits for the ball to go dead before then allowing the 4th official to review footage of the incident, in isolation from the two managers. 

 

What would happen in a situation where an appeal is waved away and the team goes up the other end and scores a goal of their own is a whole debate in itself, do you overturn their goal and bring play back for the penalty? Do you let the goal stand and award the penalty? 

 

Obviously it's not going to be simple but I think the technology is there and with so many bad decisions being made in a league where the difference in finishing positions is now worth a small fortune it is definitely something that needs to be looked at. 

Yes, Blue Daze, but sports that have also evolved in terms of speed and the need for mere humans to have assistance rather than results being down to their, sometimes flawed, decisions.

I'm surprised the heath and safety aspect seems to have been lost. Had Barnes been picked up earlier play would have been safer. Matic, make no mistake, has had a very close shave and refs and the FA have a duty of care amongst other things.

Yes, Blue Daze, but sports that have also evolved in terms of speed and the need for mere humans to have assistance rather than results being down to their, sometimes flawed, decisions.

I'm surprised the heath and safety aspect seems to have been lost. Had Barnes been picked up earlier play would have been safer. Matic, make no mistake, has had a very close shave and refs and the FA have a duty of care amongst other things.

 

Which is why I think the goal line technology is a good step forward. It doesn't affect play in anyway yet gives a definitive answer to something that either did or didn't happen.

 

I think if video reviews in game are to be introduced then, initially at least, they need to be restricted in how much they can be used. 

 

Like you say you don't want the pace and rhythm of the game to be distrusted heavily. 

 

Taking the Costa penalty appeal against Burnley as an example as soon as the appeal isn't given then Mourinho indicates to the 4th official he wants to contest it. This is relayed to referee who then waits for the ball to go dead before then allowing the 4th official to review footage of the incident, in isolation from the two managers. 

 

 

I think that example highlights how video evidence might not change a thing. Some would've still seen that as a very soft penalty to give, unlike the handball.

 

 

 

What would happen in a situation where an appeal is waved away and the team goes up the other end and scores a goal of their own is a whole debate in itself, do you overturn their goal and bring play back for the penalty? Do you let the goal stand and award the penalty? 

 

Obviously it's not going to be simple but I think the technology is there and with so many bad decisions being made in a league where the difference in finishing positions is now worth a small fortune it is definitely something that needs to be looked at. 

 

And that's the problem. How far back do you allow things to be challenged? Could play go on for a full minute and then you take it back because the ref missed something? It's already something of an issue in rugby union in some people's opinions so I don't know quite how it works here.

I think that example highlights how video evidence might not change a thing. Some would've still seen that as a very soft penalty to give, unlike the handball.

 

 

And that's the problem. How far back do you allow things to be challenged? Could play go on for a full minute and then you take it back because the ref missed something? It's already something of an issue in rugby union in some people's opinions so I don't know quite how it works here.

 

Obviously not all decisions are black & white and can be open to interpretation. 

 

Perhaps the answer is not to have just the 4th official to review footage but the referee and one other as well so that you'll always have a majority decision at least 2 of the three will agree on a right on wrong decision given. 

 

So with Costa's penalty appeal the 3 reviewing the incident will decide is the contact illegal and/or excessive to warrant a penalty. 

 

If you've got at least 2 officials agreeing it is penalty following a review of footage is a lot harder to feel disgruntled if it's given. 

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

I think Managers should be allowed to challenge 1 decision per match- The challenge should be made within 10 seconds of the incident and if it is incorrect than you lose that challeng yet if it is successfull than it is reinstated

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’.

 

 

 

‘… he [Jose] was wrong when he alleged that there was a conspiracy in the media against Chelsea: conspiracies have to be hidden.’ 

 

Now, if I remember correctly, Jose used the word ‘campaign’, not ‘conspiracy’ and he was right to choose his words carefully. However, where I think he went wrong was to to then allow the mocking ’infamy, infamy, they’ve got it in for me!’ brigade to hijack the quote and let them [the media] run with the rewrite completely unchecked - his self-imposed silence working against him in this instance and playing right into their hands. 

 

 

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.  

At whose discretion?

Like in cricket, three calls.