Pars vs. Doonhamers

[Duke of Argyll]

Yep.  His hesitation was fatal and allowed Tapping to make the crucial intervention. and Hammill's clerance..well done both.

Fair play to Charleston for withstanding the appeals.

[HoBNob]

I think it would be one of two things. Either the referee stops play and the decision is review so for example a penalty either the penalty is given or its a free kick to defensive team. This is obviously just being vague about it. The other way to do it is a review system that only the captain can call for. For example one review each half if there a penalty call the captain can chose to review within 30 sec. Again just being vague. I think there would be less simulation as players will be found out and punished in game.

Goal line tech is a start but more needed for me.

So what if the ref stops play while the attacking team have the ball, reviews it, no penalty. The defending team get a free kick? 

You'd get captains calling for a review to stop opposition teams scoring on the break. 

Only call it if you're in position/ball is in opposition half? Alternatively the referee gets given two reviews a half?

I'm just wondering if the striker could have made an attempt at a diving header there instead of waiting for it to fall at his foot. Mind you the ball drops pretty sharpish so perhaps not.  On my first viewing of the footage from behind the goal that was my initial thought.

He could have I suppose, with how the ball drops he'd have to be supremely confident in his abilities to pull it off, it just looks like he has a split second of "Wtf" and c***s it.

He's a central midfielder alsk, Reilly was away doing non striker stuff at this stage.

[qos_75]

20 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

 

... Reilly was away doing non striker stuff at this stage.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Grant228 said:

 

I'm not sure what's got to you so much but it's glorious.

 

Yes, you're clearly the big winner on this thread.

[Homer Thompson]

1 hour ago, Doonhamer doon south said:

Like I said I was just being vague. There are literally hundreds of scenarios in what could and might happen. So to answer your question I don't know. Captains calling review would be a no if there is one per half and they already used that trick then it won't make to much difference.

One thing to say though is there would have to be minimal disruption to the game. Too many times in rugby union the decision takes far too long to make

The last part is the problem. As I said, the NFL changed the way they work it because it caused too much disruption and took too long. Thats a game ideally suited, you would have thought, to use replays. 

[Homer Thompson]

51 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

 

Only call it if you're in position/ball is in opposition half? Alternatively the referee gets given two reviews a half?

 

He could have I suppose, with how the ball drops he'd have to be supremely confident in his abilities to pull it off, it just looks like he has a split second of "Wtf" and c***s it.

He's a central midfielder alsk, Reilly was away doing non striker stuff at this stage.

Nice to see you taking being proven so horribly wrong well. Still, at least you've moved on from Paul Burns

[Doonhamer doon south]

The last part is the problem. As I said, the NFL changed the way they work it because it caused too much disruption and took too long. Thats a game ideally suited, you would have thought, to use replays. 

It works well in cricket and tennis due to there being such short passage of plays. It's good in rugby but there can still be problems. Goal line is the start. Perhaps have a video referee who can tell the ref about an incident. So the video referee can stop play if the on pitch referee plays an advantage. I dunno there would be some major discussion about it

[Homer Thompson]

13 minutes ago, Doonhamer doon south said:

It works well in cricket and tennis due to there being such short passage of plays. It's good in rugby but there can still be problems. Goal line is the start. Perhaps have a video referee who can tell the ref about an incident. So the video referee can stop play if the on pitch referee plays an advantage. I dunno there would be some major discussion about it

Cricket and tennis rely more on hawkeye than video replays though. Thats a great system because it gives a definitive answer and goal line technology works in the same way, so thats fine - although given there are so few genuine incidents where theres a question over whether the ball crossed the line or not I'd question the benefits of that rather than the implementation.

Replays, though, still rely on a referee watching a replay, potential several times and from different angles to reach a decision. Take the penalty incident in question. Even watching it once from each of the 3 angles takes roughly a minute. What happens in that time? Does the game go on? Does everyone stand around waiting? And that minute is just the footage once, it doesnt take into account the time to prepare the footage or any repeat viewing. Even two viewings of each angle is going to take 3 minutes plus. I would say even thats conservative as the "replay official" is going to do everything to make sure they get it right. The referees get so much abuse for wrong decisions now, can you imagine the uproar if they had video replays and still made the wrong decision? It all adds to the time - they watch that penalty claim 3 times, just to be sure, and you're potentially at 5 minutes delay.

Im quite prepared to admit I might be wrong about this, but I just dont see how it would work and no-one who is for video replays has ever come up with a workable solution

[TeeMan]

6 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Cricket and tennis rely more on hawkeye than video replays though. Thats a great system because it gives a definitive answer and goal line technology works in the same way, so thats fine - although given there are so few genuine incidents where theres a question over whether the ball crossed the line or not I'd question the benefits of that rather than the implementation.

Replays, though, still rely on a referee watching a replay, potential several times and from different angles to reach a decision. Take the penalty incident in question. Even watching it once from each of the 3 angles takes roughly a minute. What happens in that time? Does the game go on? Does everyone stand around waiting? And that minute is just the footage once, it doesnt take into account the time to prepare the footage or any repeat viewing. Even two viewings of each angle is going to take 3 minutes plus. I would say even thats conservative as the "replay official" is going to do everything to make sure they get it right. The referees get so much abuse for wrong decisions now, can you imagine the uproar if they had video replays and still made the wrong decision? It all adds to the time - they watch that penalty claim 3 times, just to be sure, and you're potentially at 5 minutes delay.

Im quite prepared to admit I might be wrong about this, but I just dont see how it would work and no-one who is for video replays has ever come up with a workable solution

It also seems to me that as such technology is introduced the refs become more reluctant to make a decision without a referral just to be sure - it feels that way in rugby (though I'm not an avid follower) - which will only increase the waiting times.

[HoBNob]

Yes, you're clearly the big winner on this thread.

A few QoTS seem to have genuinely taken it personally that Dunfermline fans thought it was a penalty, baffling.

Nice to see you taking being proven so horribly wrong well. Still, at least you've moved on from Paul Burns

I genuinely have absolutely no idea no idea what you're on about, I'm pretty comfortable with that I got the penalty shout wrong, from the angle I was at and how fast it happened it looked like a penalty, my mates at the game(particularly the one who is usually spot on) were also adamant it was a penalty, from there angle though I presume they thought Spences thigh caught the ball first.

On the grand scheme of things I'd say that's taking it pretty well, pretty glorious to see that you've taken it personally that Paul Burns was so shit, no idea why you're still pissy about it all these years later but hey ho. It appears now you're taking it personally that Reilly has been utterly anonymous. He'll be back at QoTS next season when he gets released from Hearts,you can fawn over him then.

I remember after the game where Bayne scored late on you had Queens fans reacting similarly, if not worse. It happens.

[Broony88]

22 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

 

A few QoTS seem to have genuinely taken it personally that Dunfermline fans thought it was a penalty, baffling.


I genuinely have absolutely no idea no idea what you're on about, I'm pretty comfortable with that I got the penalty shout wrong, from the angle I was at and how fast it happened it looked like a penalty, my mates at the game(particularly the one who is usually spot on) were also adamant it was a penalty, from there angle though I presume they thought Spences thigh caught the ball first.

On the grand scheme of things I'd say that's taking it pretty well, pretty glorious to see that you've taken it personally that Paul Burns was so shit, no idea why you're still pissy about it all these years later but hey ho. It appears now you're taking it personally that Reilly has been utterly anonymous. He'll be back at QoTS next season when he gets released from Hearts,you can fawn over him then.

I remember after the game where Bayne scored late on you had Queens fans reacting similarly, if not worse. It happens.

 

No I think we are sniggering because pre qos highlights Charleston was being made out to be a complete and utter cheat and the "whole of the Norrie" had witnessed this massive injustice right infront of them.

 

There is a massive chance that Reilly will be at a better performing club than Dunfermline next season you are spot on with that one.  

 

 

 

[HoBNob]

No I think we are sniggering because pre qos highlights Charleston was being made out to be a complete and utter cheat and the "whole of the Norrie" had witnessed this massive injustice right infront of them.

 

There is a massive chance that Reilly will be at a better performing club than Dunfermline next season you are spot on with that one.  

 

 

 

Charleston is a guff referee, the fact he's a Falkirk fan gives people reason to believe the reason he gets calls wrongs is because of that. He's just pretty shit. And as I said, I can only presume they thought Spence got there first, undoubtedly being a wee bit biased, it happens. As it happened before between the clubs when QoTS were similarly raging at what was the correct decision.

Pretty impressive you can see who will finish higher next season, I'm not entirely sure where teams will finish this season.

[Mustafa_sheet]

Why is it when somebody mentions Falkirk in a thread it's descends into utter chaos and normally sane people become ranting lunatics?! [emoji15]

[Homer Thompson]

1 hour ago, TeeMan said:

It also seems to me that as such technology is introduced the refs become more reluctant to make a decision without a referral just to be sure - it feels that way in rugby (though I'm not an avid follower) - which will only increase the waiting times.

Yes, thats another problem. It was certainly big issue in the NFL and one of the reasons they now use a challenge system.

1 hour ago, Grant228 said:

 

A few QoTS seem to have genuinely taken it personally that Dunfermline fans thought it was a penalty, baffling.


I genuinely have absolutely no idea no idea what you're on about, I'm pretty comfortable with that I got the penalty shout wrong, from the angle I was at and how fast it happened it looked like a penalty, my mates at the game(particularly the one who is usually spot on) were also adamant it was a penalty, from there angle though I presume they thought Spences thigh caught the ball first.

On the grand scheme of things I'd say that's taking it pretty well, pretty glorious to see that you've taken it personally that Paul Burns was so shit, no idea why you're still pissy about it all these years later but hey ho. It appears now you're taking it personally that Reilly has been utterly anonymous. He'll be back at QoTS next season when he gets released from Hearts,you can fawn over him then.

I remember after the game where Bayne scored late on you had Queens fans reacting similarly, if not worse. It happens.

 

Im not sure you know what taking something personally means.

[Socks]

Aye, fair enough, he's clearly got the ball from the angle behind the goal. I still don't think it's a good tackle due to making it with both feet off the ground as I was going on about last night, and would still normally expect a free kick for that in the centre circle, but it's not a terrible decision. Not much in the other one right at the end for the possible push, I wouldn't have given that.

[Doonhamer doon south]

Cricket and tennis rely more on hawkeye than video replays though. Thats a great system because it gives a definitive answer and goal line technology works in the same way, so thats fine - although given there are so few genuine incidents where theres a question over whether the ball crossed the line or not I'd question the benefits of that rather than the implementation.

Replays, though, still rely on a referee watching a replay, potential several times and from different angles to reach a decision. Take the penalty incident in question. Even watching it once from each of the 3 angles takes roughly a minute. What happens in that time? Does the game go on? Does everyone stand around waiting? And that minute is just the footage once, it doesnt take into account the time to prepare the footage or any repeat viewing. Even two viewings of each angle is going to take 3 minutes plus. I would say even thats conservative as the "replay official" is going to do everything to make sure they get it right. The referees get so much abuse for wrong decisions now, can you imagine the uproar if they had video replays and still made the wrong decision? It all adds to the time - they watch that penalty claim 3 times, just to be sure, and you're potentially at 5 minutes delay.

Im quite prepared to admit I might be wrong about this, but I just dont see how it would work and no-one who is for video replays has ever come up with a workable solution

I don't think any single idea will be good because you will always get perhaps too many people opposed to it or prefer something different. One idea could be this. I would perhaps go with the captains referral method. So the on pitch ref would run the game as normal but for example a penalty decision the captain (either team) has a chance to refer that decision.

We take the game at the weekend. The pars captain would of referred that as he and the team felt it was penalty. As you say couple of minutes to make the right call. Penalty denied and referral lost. Free kick queens. Game continues.

Had the penalty been given we would of referred. Couple of minutes make the right call penalty denied and referral upheld. Free kick queens. Game continues.

If either captain or both have lost their referral then decision stays with what on pitch ref says. 1 referral each half.

Again this is being vague and just as part of the debate on here and there are going to be a lot of what if this and what if thats. If you kept it to that it would add some time on but would perhaps keep it to a minimum. Some decisions would be quicker than others. It's a fine line

[da_no_1]

Hope that absolute c**t fucks a decision up for you lot sometime soon.

[19QOS19]

Hope that absolute c**t fucks a decision up for you lot sometime soon.

What decision did he f**k up for you?

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, 19QOS19 said:

What decision did he f**k up for you?

 

 

Have you not been listening? He didnt give them a penalty they shouldnt have had. 

[Skyline Drifter]

16 minutes ago, Socks said:

Aye, fair enough, he's clearly got the ball from the angle behind the goal. I still don't think it's a good tackle due to making it with both feet off the ground as I was going on about last night, and would still normally expect a free kick for that in the centre circle, but it's not a terrible decision.

You are right, it's not a good tackle. It is an outstanding, goal-saving one. In fact it isnt really a tackle at all. Spence never has the ball. Tapping reached it first. It isnt a foul in itself to have both feet off the ground. If it was, no overhead kick would ever count. Tapping played the ball first and didnt impede the man at all until he had already played the ball away. If a free kick was given against him for that in the centre circle it would be a poor decision.