Would you enjoy the game as much if the officials got every decision right?

gebbel

Just thinking about this watching MOTD. Many games are subject to bad decisions that, in hindsight, lead to unjust goals and results. The debate and argument that these bad decisions generate are part and parcel of thrill of the sport. All of our favourite teams have benefitted and suffered in equal measure from poor refereeing decisions. The technological ability now exists to eliminate all bad decisions but has not been adopted yet. My question is would you enjoy the game as much if the right call was made 100% of the time?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

youll never get 100%, but it hasn't seemed to hurt rugby

cichlid child

I have always said it.I like the idea that the ref gets it wrong sometimes. It gives us an excuse to debate in the pub and usually gets a bit of banter going between the fans

kryogen

I think the human error factor is great tbh, but of course the game itself would be better/fairer if every decision was 100% right.

Mr.Crinklewood

No.

I do believe that things tod even themselves out.

The perception is that the bigger that the referee favours them. I believe it is all to do with percentages abd quality.

Bigger teams attack more, therefore spend more time in the penalty box, therefore have a higher probability of getting a contentious secessions for them.

Bigger teams have better quality players, therefore they are more likely to benefit as a result of a contentious decession. If the result of a contentious decession is not a goal we are unlikely to see it.

The_Kew_Tour

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

No.

I do believe that things tod even themselves out.

The perception is that the bigger that the referee favours them. I believe it is all to do with percentages abd quality.

Bigger teams attack more, therefore spend more time in the penalty box, therefore have a higher probability of getting a contentious secessions for them.

Bigger teams have better quality players, therefore they are more likely to benefit as a result of a contentious decession. If the result of a contentious decession is not a goal we are unlikely to see it.

Spot on.

Mr.Crinklewood

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Spot on.

Apart from the spelling. Damn phone

gebbel

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

No.

I do believe that things tod even themselves out.

The perception is that the bigger that the referee favours them. I believe it is all to do with percentages abd quality.

Bigger teams attack more, therefore spend more time in the penalty box, therefore have a higher probability of getting a contentious secessions for them.

Bigger teams have better quality players, therefore they are more likely to benefit as a result of a contentious decession. If the result of a contentious decession is not a goal we are unlikely to see it.

So are you saying that unjust decisions are OK as long as the team with the star players get it?

CSF

gebbel wrote: »

So are you saying that unjust decisions are OK as long as the team with the star players get it?

Yeah thats exactly what he was saying.

gebbel

CSF wrote: »

gebbel wrote: »

So are you saying that unjust decisions are OK as long as the team with the star players get it?

Yeah thats exactly what he was saying.

That's not very fair then, is it? If the star players haven't managed to defeat their inferior opponents without unjust decisions going in their favour....then they have not proved anything.

monkey9

In answer to the op's question, yes i would. I don't watch football in the hope that the officials mess up just so they entertain me. I'm entertained by thye match itself. Why do people need to discuss the officials mistakes?? There's plenty more that can be discussed in pubs.

One of the arguements that does my head in when it comes to not having tv technology is that it will slow the game down! waiting on the decision. I hate that.

The game slows down for any number of reasons i.e free kicks, penalties, throw ins, injuries etc. Having to wait for a decision from an official watching the game on tv just adds to the tension!

kryogen

gebbel wrote: »

That's not very fair then, is it? If the star players haven't managed to defeat their inferior opponents without unjust decisions going in their favour....then they have proved anything.

You may need to get a new sarcasm detector

stovelid

It does not intrinsically harm the consumed product in a meaningful way for me as long as long-term success objectives are achieved.

kitakyushu

I'd prefer the ref to get the decision right 100% of the time. But then on the other hand I feel like most players don't deserve such officiating as they're for the most part encouraged to to cheat and be cynical. I find the inbuilt injustice in the game to almost be a karmic leveller for the rampant dishonesty on show by the players.

For example when Suarez should get a peno off a hard call and the ref doesn't give it you know deep down the incorrect decision is about 80% the players own fault because he's set himself up as the boy who cried wolf.

gebbel

kitakyushu wrote: »

For example when Suarez should get a peno off a hard call and the ref doesn't give it you know deep down the incorrect decision is about 80% the players own fault because he's set himself up as the boy who cried wolf.

Players like Suarez would hate if the ref called it right every time....it would take a good chunk off his goal credits (including penalties/ free kicks scored by his teammates).

monkey9

kitakyushu wrote: »

I'd prefer the ref to get the decision right 100% of the time. But then on the other hand I feel like most players don't deserve such officiating as they're for the most part encouraged to to cheat and be cynical. I find the inbuilt injustice in the game to almost be a karmic leveller for the rampant dishonesty on show by the players.

For example when Suarez should get a peno off a hard call and the ref doesn't give it you know deep down the incorrect decision is about 80% the players own fault because he's set himself up as the boy who cried wolf.

Completely agree. He should have had a peno and also later on, was booked for diving, when in fact, he should have been awarded a free kick. That's tough sh!t though, if you dive all the time, you live with the consequences!!

But this leads me onto another point. I'm so sick and tired the way football is now becoming a no contact sport and it really is!!! This is becoming more and more evident!!!!

Andy Carroll got so much stick for his dive last week and rightly so. But he did nothing different to what happens in every football game these days. He anticipated the contact, it just didn't arrive on that occasion!

When was the last time you saw a peno when someone genuinely ended up on their arse?? Players aren't tripped anymore. The choose whether they will fall or not!!

joshrogan

Technology will not eliminate the majority of wrong decisions that happen outside the penalty box.

gebbel

joshrogan wrote: »

Technology will not eliminate the majority of wrong decisions that happen outside the penalty box.

It does in other sports.

dreamers75

gebbel wrote: »

It does in other sports.

Not the same level of contact, do you want a replay for an alleged push in the back?

monkey9

Yeah, but if you do it right, it'll be fine. If managers have say, two challenges a match, then it's up to them to use them wisely.

So if you use up your quota of challenges and the ref awards a nonsensical penalty against your team, tough shit. The ref messed up and the manager messed up. Therefore it stops the the sh!te spouted in post match interviews!

gebbel

dreamers75 wrote: »

gebbel wrote: »

It does in other sports.

Not the same level of contact, do you want a replay for an alleged push in the back?

If the push in back leads to a goal, either directly or indirectly, then this could be eliminated with technology.

Liam O

First of all, this idea that things "even themselves out" is pure shíte. A referees bad call in one game isn't evened out because 10-20 games down the line a team gets a call in their favour. It's just media rubbish that gets spouted by Sky.

As has been said before though, it's true that the big teams are going to get more penalties/frees etc. because they are in the box 5 times more than their opponents. As the system is now, it encourages cheating, and honestly, fair play to a player who can play the system and not get caught. If they brought in technology and immediately sent off any player caught conclusively diving then it would change and for the better. Can't see how anyone wouldn't enjoy the game as much if it wasn't officiated properly. Football is about great players playing, not bad refereeing calls.

Morpork

I'm also in favour of a challange system akin to American football's system. 2 or 3 challenges each per match if they want to use them. It'd hardly add much time to the game. Sure they could be checking the replay while the player is on the ground. It would cut out simulation too as players know they can't get away with it anymore.

It's a simple solution to many problems to be honest.

Coillte_Bhoy

gebbel wrote: »

It does in other sports.

Care to elaborate cos no it doesnt

Richard Hillman

I absolutely despise all the chat about wrong decisions. I'd prefer if they just got the decisions right.

gebbel

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

gebbel wrote: »

It does in other sports.

Care to elaborate cos no it doesnt

OK so maybe not eliminate completely, but if you look at sports like American Football, any play can be reviewed by the officials....no matter if it is a point scoring play or not. They just throw a flag on the pitch if the umpires miss something.

Not that anybody would like to see football destroyed by all those breaks in play, I'm just saying unjust decisions can be eliminated, that's all.

Edit: alluded to by morpork above.

L'prof

Things evening themselves out over the course of a season is the biggest lie in football! Teams gain and teams lose out on valuable points every season due to poor refereeing decisions. They probably even out eventually, but not throughout the course of any one season. I'd prefer if the right technology was introduced to help get the vast majority of decisions correct.

monkey9

L'prof wrote: »

Things evening themselves out over the course of a season is the biggest lie in football! Teams gain and teams lose out on valuable points every season due to poor refereeing decisions. They probably even out eventually, but not throughout the course of any one season. I'd prefer if the right technology was introduced to help get the vast majority of decisions correct.

I agree. You're an Arsenal fan, right? So if Arsenal have a penalty incorrectly awarded against them against say, Chelsea and Arsenal lose one nil because it. If they then get a penalty incorrectly awarded to them and they score it as the third goal in a four nil win against say, Norwich at the Emirates, has that evened itself out??

It's not even goal line technology that's needed. It plainly simply a person looking at a tv and allowed to say into the refs earpiece "this or that has happened". That's the incident cleared up in seconds!!

mike65

Ahem! Utd 1 - 0 QPR

They say these things even themselves out...do they? has anyone gone through a season of decisions to see if that is actually the case?

amacachi

monkey9 wrote: »

I agree. You're an Arsenal fan, right? So if Arsenal have a penalty incorrectly awarded against them against say, Chelsea and Arsenal lose one nil because it. If they then get a penalty incorrectly awarded to them and they score it as the third goal in a four nil win against say, Norwich at the Emirates, has that evened itself out??

That's exactly it. Arsenal have won more games by just the single goal this season than usual and I can't think of any off the top of my head that were offside or whatever so little advantage was gained in any of those. I can think of when they were 1-0 up and had a goal against them allowed despite a handball though.

Guy:Incognito

mike65 wrote: »

Ahem! Utd 1 - 0 QPR

They say these things even themselves out...do they? has anyone gone through a season of decisions to see if that is actually the case?

The only way for that to even itself out is if Utd still had to play QPR this season and the same thing happened in QPR's favour. It happening for QPR against another team is not evening out because another team altogether thats not even playing is affected (say one of QPR's relegation rivals) and if it happens against City say, it means Utd have benefitted twice then.

Pepe LeFrits

Assuming there's no bias skewing decisions then yes, over a long enough period bad decisions will even themselves out. The trouble is a league season isn't long enough for that, never mind cup competitions. It may be OK for a team like Man United, if bad refereeing decisions one season cost them a league title, they might be given one the next season, but a team like Wigan could get relegated and never come back.

Football doesn't do anywhere near enough to make sure the right decisions are made.

Also, it adding to the 'drama' or 'banter' argument is crap. You could make that argument for pretty much /anything/. Sure didn't the Evra vs Suarez thing add to the Liverpool - United rivalry?

StickyMcGinty

I've always felt that FIFA's reluctance to adopt video technology was because of two reasons

1. FIFA's ability to influence the outcomes of games would be reduced. Arbitrary refereeing decisions which could be justified by "well it was a split second decision", "human error" type arguments could now be overturned in an instance with full transparency for all involved.

2. To use bad decisions in the game as PR - no publicity is bad publicity. All the conspiracy theories bandied around about bigger teams getting big decisions just have people talking about football more which in turn generates more interest in the sport, similar to the OPS point

I do think that the technology should be brought in. There's never a shortage of things to talk about after a game, its just that the more important things are overlooked because of the controversial offside incident etc