https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46240992
I got 5/5 calamities right. They all have a habit of sticking in the mind
I got 5/5 calamities right. They all have a habit of sticking in the mind
As rusty said factual decisions (which include offside, ball in or out...) don't have to be clear and obvious. There is no grey area in the matter. He is either on or off. Ball either in or out. Even if it is by a millimetre. That is what the protocol is saying. So if a decision is made is either right or wrong. Supposedly no grey area in the decision either. But because we don't have the right technology to definitively 'discover' the fact, then the decision (not the incident) has some grey area in it.Strongly disagree. The protocol is mess. Clear and obvious? Refs watching screens? It’s s mess.
I disagree. The part of the protocol that includes deciding if there’s a clear and obvious error and the part where a referee looks at a TV pitchside are a mess.As rusty said factual decisions (which include offside, ball in or out...) don't have to be clear and obvious. There is no grey area in the matter. He is either on or off. Ball either in or out. Even if it is by a millimetre. That is what the protocol is saying. So if a decision is made is either right or wrong. Supposedly no grey area in the decision either. But because we don't have the right technology to definitively 'discover' the fact, then the decision (not the incident) has some grey area in it.
Put the right technology in there, the decision for factual incidents would work like a charm (like GLT). No need to change the protocol.
As for non-factual decisions, USE VARs who stick to the protocol (and referees who do the same), it would also work like a charm. The problem in this area is inconsistency in applying the protocol by officials, not the protocol.
You're right, it is a black and white decision.Clear and obvious doesn't apply to offsides as that is a black and white decision. You are either on or off, there is no in the opinion of the assistant referee.
The only way these questions of fact would work well, is if the Officials were instantly 'buzzed' so the flag could go up. The flag is a vital visual cue for the fans. The whole review process kills the game, but I wouldn't be against a technology based system similar to GLTAs rusty said factual decisions (which include offside, ball in or out...) don't have to be clear and obvious. There is no grey area in the matter. He is either on or off. Ball either in or out. Even if it is by a millimetre. That is what the protocol is saying. So if a decision is made is either right or wrong. Supposedly no grey area in the decision either. But because we don't have the right technology to definitively 'discover' the fact, then the decision (not the incident) has some grey area in it.
Put the right technology in there, the decision for factual incidents would work like a charm (like GLT). No need to change the protocol.
As for non-factual decisions, USE VARs who stick to the protocol (and referees who do the same), it would also work like a charm. The problem in this area is inconsistency in applying the protocol by officials, not the protocol.