qs! wrote:
Tennis and cricket are the examples you use where the challenge thing works and both are much more stop - start sports than football. If a red doesn't give a free kick when is the appropriate time to use your appeal? Do you have to wait until the ball goes out or can you stop play? Both systems there would have terrible flaws.
Play the passage of play/ball goes out. That's usually the time players start hounding refs and contest the decision. This would be exactly the same.
And why only one appeal per game? Most of the time when you need these appeals is when you play serial cheats be they of the Bale/Suarez variety or Barton/Shawcross variety. If I have used my appeal against Liverpool already isn't that going to encourage Suarez and Gerrard to start flailing around the place?
For 'why only one' - I've explained...in order to make sure teams only use it when absolutely necessary. When it's a game-changing decision that royally fucks a team over.
I don't see why that'd encourage them any more than now. The referee is still there as always.
Beyond that I just don't see how this appeal system fits into the game of football. Its too contrived, too removed from the way the game works. Its like suggesting sin bins or special teams. Its just not football.
Very, very little would change. You're (maybe) adding on about two mins onto games max...if that...considering players arguing with the ref delays restarts anyway. For a challenge it's stop-start for - what - 30 seconds while the 4th official checks the video screen and almost always sides with the ref unless it's clear as day the ref's being a mong.
To say it's not football is to say we're happy with no accountability for the Clattenberg's who can completely ruin contests. You can still have good and bad refereeing performances, but it's designed to protect against disgusting performances where a fan paying £50 for a ref to destroy the game through stupidity. That's improving football. If it's not football, I'd rather play this new sport.
