A&H

Keith Hackett outdoes himself

The Referee Store
Not so bad, it's just somewhat misleading wording. You can be absolutely certain and still wrong - and you'd always have to consider that even if you think it went from post to post, GLT has a better view than you do.
 
The third answer is the most stupid. Caution a player for USB for delaying the restart.

Aren't these separate cautions?
 
Charlie Jones said:
no, its literally impossible to be 100% certain in this situation
Click to expand...

What!?

Its a hypothetical situation - as they used to tell me at school - "read the question"
That says 100% certain - that's what it means.

I agree in real life its difficult to be 100% certain about anything!, but if you SAW the ball WAS or WAS NOT over the line you have to go with that.
 
Charlie Jones said:
im not sure how he has out done himself? GLT is 99% correct
Click to expand...

And the referee is 100% certain the ball didn't cross the line (ignore the picture, as no referee could be 100% certain of that).
But if I am 100% certain, asking me to award a goal is insane
 
The AR was 100% sure that the ball didn't cross the line when Lampard took that shot in the England v Germany game.

The AR was 100% sure that the ball didn't cross the line in the Tottenham v Manchester United game with Roy Carroll.

Both were actually across the line (as we all well know).

Hell, the AR was 100% sure the ball DID cross the line back in 1966. Photographic evidence now suggests he was wrong...
 
AlexF said:
The AR was 100% sure that the ball didn't cross the line when Lampard took that shot in the England v Germany game.

The AR was 100% sure that the ball didn't cross the line in the Tottenham v Manchester United game with Roy Carroll.

Both were actually across the line (as we all well know).

Hell, the AR was 100% sure the ball DID cross the line back in 1966. Photographic evidence now suggests he was wrong...
Click to expand...

With all due respect the 2nd one is clearly nonsense as AR was about 50 yards away - in fact the opposite was true he didn't give the goal because he wasn't 100% sure it had crossed the line (from his position) - that's a completely different scenario.

We're talking about a situation where you are 100% certain of what you have seen (repeating myself - but read the OP!) so why would you ignore that and go with the watch!

As we have seen in cricket and tennis, technology is not infallible.
 
100% certain is what you think you have seen.

I've watched some of the Hawkeye demonstration videos, and it is incredible how, in real-time, I was *totally* sure the ball had / had not crossed the line, but when replayed at 'Hawkeye speed' demonstrated I was completely wrong.

Along similar lines, you're 100% sure a foul has happened in the penalty area, but you realise there is no reaction at all from anyone involved. Everyone just continues. No appeal. It's as if it never was a foul.

Would you still give it? Are you still 100% sure?
 
Mewcenary said:
100% certain is what you think you have seen.

I've watched some of the Hawkeye demonstration videos, and it is incredible how, in real-time, I was *totally* sure the ball had / had not crossed the line, but when replayed at 'Hawkeye speed' demonstrated I was completely wrong.

Along similar lines, you're 100% sure a foul has happened in the penalty area, but you realise there is no reaction at all from anyone involved. Everyone just continues. No appeal. It's as if it never was a foul.

Would you still give it? Are you still 100% sure?
Click to expand...

I don't want to be chucked off this board, but I'm getting bored of saying the same thing now.

In the real world of course you're right, all of us have given umpteen decisions we were sure were right only to realise that we were wrong.

All I'm doing is arguing from the hypothetical scenario as written - of course if you add a word that completely changes the original scenario I'm not going to be correct, but that's hardly fair is it?!

One more time...if I have SEEN ball over or not over the line, I have a clear view and I am 100% certain, I'm sticking to my decision, buzz or not
 
but you still wouldn't - even if I was 1000% sure it has crossed - the buzzer would throw off my trail of though and the brain would instinctively go with the GLT
 
I'd go with the GLT for what it's worth.

Let the people who're responsible for ensuring the equipment has been correctly calibrated/tested etc take the rap if it turns out to be the wronf decision.
 
PinnerPaul said:
What!?

Its a hypothetical situation - as they used to tell me at school - "read the question"
That says 100% certain - that's what it means.

I agree in real life its difficult to be 100% certain about anything!, but if you SAW the ball WAS or WAS NOT over the line you have to go with that.
Click to expand...

The only possible way you can actually be 100% certain is if you were right on the line and the ball was quite clearly not wholly over.

If you're anywhere in the field then you can't be 100% certain (and you can't truly see that the ball 'wasn't' over the line). It may be hypothetical, but hypothetical questions still need to make sense. This one doesn't.
 
All of the above is largely irrelevant though, isn't it? At the level I referee, if my watch is buzzing it's telling me time's up...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top