I say while we're at it give the fourth official a small monitor for instant replays and to see if an individual indeed did dive or not.
P.S. What would the media be like if Young was English
............
I dread to imagine.
The problem is proving that they dive, and that is a very difficult task.
The technology is available for all of the misdemeanors being aired on these forums,ball crossing the goal line,diving.offside decisions.
Its used in numerous other sports,why not fooball.
comment by Serial WUManiser - Disciple of Boy Bastin - Show me the head of Gazidis - Minding the Gap #prayforashley (U1410) posted 1 minute ago
The problem is proving that they dive, and that is a very difficult task.
===============
Video technology should come in, or video evidence should be reviewed after the game. But some diving is pretty obvious even in real time (i.e. Young yesterday).
The trouble with this is – there is too much down to interpretation.
Some decisions are clear and obvious – if a ball is over a line it is over (that’s a topical one!)
Other decisions are down to interpretation… is a foul worth a yellow card? There is a degree of interpretation in that. The same too for diving now. People are not in agreement as to what actually constitutes a dive…
If it was just for no contact and the player goes down – it wouldn’t actually deal with the vast majority of dives – where the player feels the absolute faintest of touches… or the player makes the contact themselves.
Other decisions are down to interpretation
-------------------------------------------------------
There's no relevance to that statement, already a referee has to make that decision, all you are doing with video-technology is helping him to make the right one. If you can't prove someone dived with video, then he didn't dive, simples.
Wengooner – Two referees might see the same incident and judge it differently in the context of the game. Video replays do not produce unanimous agreement of decisions. That is all. A video might be able to show a ball on or off the pitch – if will not necessarily be able to show whether a player “dived”. If a player feels a slightest of nudges in his back – and goes it ground, is it a foul? The line of what is “enough” to award a foul is quite blurred in reality.
If a player jumps down and sticks his leg out on the way down to get contact – then is that a dive? Afterall there is contact…
If a player goes in recklessly and someone jumps out of the way – that technically is a dive, but in the context of the game it perhaps isn’t… you don’t have to stand still and get your leg broken to have the foul awarded.
I don’t think it is black and white, that is all. Video evidence doesn’t end the debate – and even after seeing the evidence there are often still disagreements.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Wenger's Diving Idea
Page 1 of 1
posted on 16/4/12
I say while we're at it give the fourth official a small monitor for instant replays and to see if an individual indeed did dive or not.
posted on 16/4/12
P.S. What would the media be like if Young was English
............
I dread to imagine.
posted on 16/4/12
The problem is proving that they dive, and that is a very difficult task.
posted on 16/4/12
The technology is available for all of the misdemeanors being aired on these forums,ball crossing the goal line,diving.offside decisions.
Its used in numerous other sports,why not fooball.
posted on 16/4/12
comment by Serial WUManiser - Disciple of Boy Bastin - Show me the head of Gazidis - Minding the Gap #prayforashley (U1410) posted 1 minute ago
The problem is proving that they dive, and that is a very difficult task.
===============
Video technology should come in, or video evidence should be reviewed after the game. But some diving is pretty obvious even in real time (i.e. Young yesterday).
posted on 16/4/12
The trouble with this is – there is too much down to interpretation.
Some decisions are clear and obvious – if a ball is over a line it is over (that’s a topical one!)
Other decisions are down to interpretation… is a foul worth a yellow card? There is a degree of interpretation in that. The same too for diving now. People are not in agreement as to what actually constitutes a dive…
If it was just for no contact and the player goes down – it wouldn’t actually deal with the vast majority of dives – where the player feels the absolute faintest of touches… or the player makes the contact themselves.
posted on 16/4/12
Other decisions are down to interpretation
-------------------------------------------------------
There's no relevance to that statement, already a referee has to make that decision, all you are doing with video-technology is helping him to make the right one. If you can't prove someone dived with video, then he didn't dive, simples.
posted on 16/4/12
Wengooner – Two referees might see the same incident and judge it differently in the context of the game. Video replays do not produce unanimous agreement of decisions. That is all. A video might be able to show a ball on or off the pitch – if will not necessarily be able to show whether a player “dived”. If a player feels a slightest of nudges in his back – and goes it ground, is it a foul? The line of what is “enough” to award a foul is quite blurred in reality.
If a player jumps down and sticks his leg out on the way down to get contact – then is that a dive? Afterall there is contact…
If a player goes in recklessly and someone jumps out of the way – that technically is a dive, but in the context of the game it perhaps isn’t… you don’t have to stand still and get your leg broken to have the foul awarded.
I don’t think it is black and white, that is all. Video evidence doesn’t end the debate – and even after seeing the evidence there are often still disagreements.
Page 1 of 1