11 Dec 2017 04:01:02
All this talk about penalty decisions being "soft" or "harsh" is so bogus.
As SA said, it's either a penalty or it isn't a penalty.
The debate really should be about whether or not the referee made a correct decision. That's why I would like the match officials to use instant video reviews, although I accept even that wouldn't guarantee 100% accuracy for all situations.
{Ed001's Note - it would be pointless, even now after everyone has seen a hundred reviews there is an argument about it, so what chance would officials have? People just need to accept referee's decisions, even when wrong, so long as the decisions are honestly made it's just a case of sucking it up and moving on when it goes against you.}
11 Dec 2017 04:36:27
Ed001 - agree about accepting decisions, but anything that helps the referee’s decision-making process sounds good to me.
11 Dec 2017 09:53:40
Ed your spot on decisions are made during the match unless it blatant cheating there is no recourse to change anything. the referee's decision is final
I do agree that technology would aid the decision making process but it would be a really difficult to get the correct process in place. If you look at rugby for example the game has changed from an interpretive style to being played to the letter of the law. Football is not really conducive to video scrutiny in real time. There is far to much cheating by the players, for a start corners and attacking free kicks would be an absolute nightmare to manage as well as aerial contests. The game would have to change significantly. On the other hand watching some managers post match interviews would be highly entertaining after they have seen a match winning goal being cancelled due to a review that finds foul play committed in the build up.