Its true that he didnt signal for offside. But you yourself say the offside is too close to call, on those grounds surely you admit there is a chance it was the right call for the wrong reason?
On video technology, I think it depends on how its used if it is good for the game.
It isnt controversial now that if you punch someone and the ref doesnt see it, you can retrospectively be banned
I would be happy for the use of goal line technology. If the ref is in doubt, as soon as the threat to goal passed, he blows up - refers to the technology and you either give a goal or a goal kick. Decision should normally be possible in 1 minute.
But video technology can also be negative. I like using it for run outs in cricket for example, but it is wrong imho to use it for LBW's for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindles
There is huge reason right here as to why not to use the video ref. In Rugby (and Rugby League) there are very limited parameters into how the video can be used, specifically relating to the play leading up to a try, and whether it is scored or not. League don't allow the video ref to go back before the previous 'play the ball', and Rugby is pretty much limited to checking grounding of the ball and touchlines.
The issue in soccer is how far back do you go? There can quite often be several minutes of play since the last stoppage - what is the parameters used to determine? The last minute? The last 5 passes? Of course as soon as you bring in a hard rule like this, a few 6 passes ago gets ignored and people complain. Soccer has few enough goals (especially at this level), and I'd suggest that any video ref would actually reduce the numbers. I'm not sure this is in the best interest of the game.
RE the 'offside' - that is too close to call, and no sane linesman would put his flag up for that. The referee is in no position to call that. It is clear he stuffed up in rewarding a free kick, which was obviously NOT for offside.
|