marvinbarcelona

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

First point: I agree, but not to commentators on Sky Sports, but to the manager and player concerned. This wouldn't be a discussion, but merely a fuller explanation of the rules of the game. Second Point; I see you've played rugby at the lower levels.

With the recent debates over the weekends refereeing decisions; what rule(s) would you like to see brought or amended to ensure the game flows better, aids referees and maintains discipline? I'll start; 01. Only two players are allowed to talk to the referee during the game; the captains of each team and the player the referee wishes to speak to. This would also include shouting at an official from a great distance or talking to/shouting at the assistant referees. Anyone else attempting to speak to the referee gets booked. 02. A repeal of the new offside ruling. Go back to the was it was previously, this current ruling is confusing and gives the officials very little chance. As some one famous once said, "if you're not interfering with play, what are you doing on the pitch?" 03.The referee blows for a direct or indirect freekick and the opposition are arguing; (a) if they're not the captain, then they're booked (b) if they are the captain and he refuses to accept the referees decision, the kick is moved ten yards forwards and so on. We could learn an awful lot from rugby.

Dear Pendantly You're correct, they don't specifically state that the referee has to be 100% certain an offence has been committed before making his decision, but I ask you to have a read of the laws of the game; it only talks about what the referee has seen or his assistant has seen. Not what he thinks might have happened, but what he has witnessed. 'Witnessed' is a word that is used a lot in the laws of the game, so we can easily draw the conclusion that the referee has to have clearly seen the incident or at least his assistant has. Now, the referee could of course, have seen an incident clearly, but mis-interpreted what he had seen. This can lead to an incorrect decision being made, but the referee can still be certain as to what he saw. Of course we the tv viewer have the benefit of replys, the referee doesn't. Many people on tis forum have taken different views on what actually happened and whether penalties should have been awarded. We all saw the same footage, we watched it played many times and yet we have come to several different conclusions. So, how come some here are laying into the referees when the tv footage is inconclusive. Think about this: how much better would you do your job if you were aware of being watched by several million people, all ready to job up and down at every decision you made? Infact; no matter what decision you made, you were guarenteed that 50% of the people watching you would disagree with your decision? It's not referees that are ruining football, it's the players, the commentators and we the fans. The referees are doing the best they can in a no-win siutation.

This content is not viewable to guests.

No, Utd aren't given the benefit of the doubt. The rules state that if the referee isn't 100% certain, then he can't give a penalty. There is no room for 'benefit of the doubt' - not 100% sure? Then it can't be given. End of.

This content is not viewable to guests.

I agree that video replay should be used, but when and where? Every decision? When the managers want them? When the players want them? They can do it in rugby because the players don't talk back to the referee. Video replays should only be used to determine if there was a goal or not. Thats all.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Did the linesman have a good view of it? If none of the officials saw it clearly, then they can't give it. End of.

Berbatov runs into Vidic and it's Vidic's fault??????

To be honest, it was a fair result. Utd had most of the possession and most of the chances. Spurs had some golden opportunities to steal the match but failed to capitalise. That's not Utd's fault, that's Spur's fault.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Can't argue with that at all.

I was convinced it wasn't handball....until the third replay and I felt it might have been. Lucky the refs have the benefit of the replay....oh, wait a minute..... Grow up, the lot of you. The handball was in doubt, therefore the ref cannot give it. Any of you who believe it wasn't in doubt, are guilty of the same bias you're accusing the ref of. I thought it hit his chest at first, but as i said, the third reply suggested it was probably his arm. Once again; the ref doesn't have the benefit of a reply, he has to go with what he saw and his interpretation of that. Sometimes five of six replays from different angles reveals the true events, but the ref doesn't have that benefit, does he? As for two penalties.....what game were you watching?????

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.