sh1t_ref_again Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Just found this clip that proves maynard was at least 2 yards on side, not sure how the linesman could get this wrong? Cisse is about to shot, maynard is on the left of the 18yrd box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Just found this clip that proves maynard was at least 2 yards on side, not sure how the linesman could get this wrong? Cisse is about to shot, maynard is on the left of the 18yrd box Looks pretty conclusive. Either way it 'usually' balances itself out over a season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportingmad0209 Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 We won the game anyway! Didn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 We won the game anyway! Didn't we? Haha will forward this to my brother in law who had Maynard first scorer!! £10 sheets at 8s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBerkeleyBoy Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 We won the game anyway! Didn't we? True but I had my Xmas present money on 0-2 at 40 - 1 !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve39 Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Did I read someone had Maynard to score first and city to win 2-0 at odds of 200-1 I would want to shoot the linesman if that were me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Just found this clip that proves maynard was at least 2 yards on side, not sure how the linesman could get this wrong? Cisse is about to shot, maynard is on the left of the 18yrd box He got it wrong because he didn't have a picture of the incident or many replays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Cloud Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 if we were in Southampton's position we'd have got it - unfortunate but the way it goes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 He got it wrong because he didn't have a picture of the incident or many replays. Which is why technology should be used to verify important decisions. I don't buy into the theory that these things even themselves out. The FA are happy to use tv pictures to suspend or fine players who misbehave, and it simply isn't possible for the officials to get every decision correct. It would take a matter of seconds for the 4th official to confirm the decision by viewing the replay available. It could and should be showed on a big screen for everyone to see. Wrong decisions don't make football better to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 He got it wrong because he didn't have a picture of the incident or many replays. He got it wrong because he guessed and made something up that didnt happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kibs Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 He got it wrong because he guessed and made something up that didnt happen. Exactly. He wasn't sure, so he guessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 1325450738' post=1485143'] He got it wrong because he guessed and made something up that didnt happen. Assume you've never ran the line at a decent level. Extremely difficult to do and never make mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Assume you've never ran the line at a decent level. Extremely difficult to do and never make mistakes. from his posistion in the picture he should not have got that wrong though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Did I read someone had Maynard to score first and city to win 2-0 at odds of 200-1 I would want to shoot the linesman if that were me. Yea but if Maynard's goal had stood, the second goal wouldn't have happened because the course of the game would have been very different as it would have re-started with a kick off to them. Hell, we might even have gone on to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Most close offside decisions are guesswork either way until you introduce technology and I wouldn't want to see that myself. Would take too long. I can understand it on goal line stuff but that is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Assume you've never ran the line at a decent level. Extremely difficult to do and never make mistakes. But there was meant to be an initiative that gave the benefit of the doubt ( and in this case there clearly must have been seeing as he was 3 yards onside) to the attacker. That's what grates, the officials at every level are so inconsistent. Do it one way or the other. Not both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Most close offside decisions are guesswork either way until you introduce technology and I wouldn't want to see that myself. Would take too long. I can understand it on goal line stuff but that is it. Agree with this I think for goal line it'll be worth it as there is many times you have to check for goal line chances but nothing else otherwise will be stop start like rugby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 He got it wrong because he guessed and made something up that didnt happen. Exactly! Coupled with the fact he could mot reverse such an awful decision, because he didnt have the benefit of a replay!!! lets hope we get one that goes for us soon...I here Sunderland had one today!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSR Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 The lino is on crack, and prob didnt want saints record to be broken, what a tool. He is a pro, I have seen better linos on sundays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Agree with this I think for goal line it'll be worth it as there is many times you have to check for goal line chances but nothing else otherwise will be stop start like rugby. I'd like to see it for goal line decisions, but also penalties and goals ruled out as offside or through fouls on the keeper. The stoppages would be much quicker than in rugby - a minute or so. That sport grinds to a halt because someone has to determine if a ball has touched down when it's virtually invisible under a mass of sweating public schoolboys. Decisions like the one over Maynard's strike are obvious as soon as you rewind the tape. Be up to the ref to refer the decision though - otherwise you get frivolous appeals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Of The Dolman Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 We have been the beneficiaries of such decisions in the past. As for technology, do we really want a slower game while officials view replays?. Isn't the chance of human error part and parcel of football, I wouldn't like everything to be decided by technology. Controversy is something that football thrives on, it gives us as fans something to talk about, it gives something for the media to devour. I think football would be less of a sport with a lot of technology, it would be taking a variable factor of the game away. We have very little in tradition left in these days of mega money in the game, do we really want to take away some more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 We have been the beneficiaries of such decisions in the past. As for technology, do we really want a slower game while officials view replays?. Isn't the chance of human error part and parcel of football, I wouldn't like everything to be decided by technology. Controversy is something that football thrives on, it gives us as fans something to talk about, it gives something for the media to devour. I think football would be less of a sport with a lot of technology, it would be taking a variable factor of the game away. We have very little in tradition left in these days of mega money in the game, do we really want to take away some more? The 'tradition' of having unaccountable officials making sh1t decisions is one I would be happy to see die out. And while we have sometimes benefited from poor reffing in the past, I don't think it can be argued that certain clubs - perceived for whatever reasons as 'glamour clubs' - get more than their fair rub of the green when it comes to such decisions. That's not sour grapes, it's basic human psychology and most fans have observed it. Imagine if that linesman had flagged as offside a goal that prevented City from going up - or by disallowing it had sent us down. I'm not sure people would be so blase then. While I wouldn't want a football match stopping all the time - and indeed I think there is too much unnecessary whistle-blowing for fair challenges as it is - the decision on whether a goal has been scored or not is so vital to games that I think TV technology should be there as an option if the ref didn't get a good look and is unsure. Every other sport uses technology to some degree. It's time football came into the 21st Century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 See it may not have counted for anything points wise in the end but it could have- just after the disallowed goal Southampton went up the other end and nearly scored IIRC- had they scored first we may very well have lost or drawn- and those 2-3 pts could have been crucial come May- plus we would not have been rewarded for our efforts/display. Technology is long overdue methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyRed Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 TV technology doesn't have to slow up the game and is long overdue. It could be based on a similar arrangement to that of other sports, whereby each team is allowed, say, 3 "decision challenges" per half which are resolved by the 4th official with the aid of TV replays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 It would not have slowed the game down anyway as the ball was already in the net and the players were celebrating, there would have been a restart, in that time it would have taken 5 seconds to find out the lino had got it wrong, However on the flip side Football is played the same on every pitch in the world at every standard the same, do we want to go down the rugby and cricket routes where just the top divisions get the benefit of replays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygoblin Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 The most shocking thing about this decision wasn't just the incorrect offside, but the fact that the ref allowed a quick restart, while we had 4 players celebrating in the corner. If Guly had a little more composure, we would have been a goal down instead of a goal up. Reminded me of Sol's "goal" v Argentina in 98. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfieldred Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Perfectly timed run penalised. Yesterday the opposite happened with Sunderland's goal. He was off and it wasn't given. Rugby league, Tennis and cricket all do TV reviews. It doesnt make the games one iota less enjoyable to watch and it takes a lot of the hard done by feeling out of both players and spectators - as justice is seen to be done. Its only because we have a fossil like Blatter running the game that its not already in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 So, according to the man himself, how much does it put on his value? Could be worth almost £1M now, with so little left on his contract ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myol'man Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I won't believe he was onside until I see NTTDS show us a Subuteo version. Come on Ted, you know it makes sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Of The Dolman Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 The 'tradition' of having unaccountable officials making sh1t decisions is one I would be happy to see die out. And while we have sometimes benefited from poor reffing in the past, I don't think it can be argued that certain clubs - perceived for whatever reasons as 'glamour clubs' - get more than their fair rub of the green when it comes to such decisions. That's not sour grapes, it's basic human psychology and most fans have observed it. Imagine if that linesman had flagged as offside a goal that prevented City from going up - or by disallowing it had sent us down. I'm not sure people would be so blase then. While I wouldn't want a football match stopping all the time - and indeed I think there is too much unnecessary whistle-blowing for fair challenges as it is - the decision on whether a goal has been scored or not is so vital to games that I think TV technology should be there as an option if the ref didn't get a good look and is unsure. Every other sport uses technology to some degree. It's time football came into the 21st Century. I'm not against technology on the whole but think the game needs to keep it's natural flow and not have prolonged and numerous breaks. As a fellow poster has already referred to at what levels would you have the technology down to? It could be expensive and at lower levels some clubs may struggle with the financial side. There are some grounds, Old Trafford being one where there is a stigma over the years of injustice on decisons. To an extent I agree that is the case, these perceptions may sway some referee's to make decisions that they may not make usually. I would be fuming as well if a legitimate goal had been disallowed and cost us promotion or caused relegation. I would be in favour of using the technology if the goal is in the net but then if you have it that way, teams will try and appeal goals they feel are offside and it could open a whole new can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.