Football? Suarez?

[Karl]

Peter, while they are NOT the same, both of the examples you used fall under the umbrella of "violent conduct". The various leagues and FIFA however, have their own policies which provide further retrospective cover for disciplinary actions. For example, you could get a red card for biting as it is "violent conduct" or a red for "cussing off someone" or "calling them a racial name". After the fact, the leagues themselves can bring further charges as was the case with the first biting incident or the Evra incident. Had the ref given Suarez a red in the Italy game, FIFA could still have brought charges. The way the laws and policies are written now gives the ref and the governing bodies broad powers, which means they have to apply good judgement as adjudicators and administrators, which is where I believe it breaks down, not necessarily with the way the laws of the game or the policy manuals are written. As far as on field activities and adjudication, I believe the biggest problem is the inconsistency and rife ambiguity in the way in which each game is refereed, both within a game, from game to game and from ref to ref. In this day and age, it is ridiculous.

Bang on...save

I believe the biggest problem is the inconsistency and rife ambiguity in the way in which each game is refereed, both within a game, from game to game and from ref to ref. In this day and age, it is ridiculous.

In the context of the FULL 100 accuracy of the above first sentence that...it is ridiculous? What is the alternative that Bricktop rejected notion he openly wondered on...i.e. 'machines managing games'?

...not sure but I think he said, "computers"?

[Paul Marin]

Bang on...save

In the context of the FULL 100 accuracy of the above first sentence that...it is ridiculous? What is the alternative that Bricktop rejected notion he openly wondered on...i.e. 'machines managing games'?

...not sure but I think he said, "computers"?

Karl, the problem is that the refs are being asked to adjudicate games where they don't have enough information. For example, dos santos had 2 goals ruled offside. Within seconds of the ball hitting the back of the net, everyone in the world - EXCEPT THE FRIGGING REF - knew it was NOT offside. Had he had that information, he could have made a just ruling. The solution is NOT machines, but rather,

1. flow of information to the decision makers in a manner that does not disrupt the game or introduce unnecessary breaks and

2. better training and more consistent application of the laws of the game from ref to ref across cultures and countries.

So me see it. (SMSI)

[Karl]

Karl, the problem is that the refs are being asked to adjudicate games where they don't have enough information. For example, dos santos had 2 goals ruled offside. Within seconds of the ball hitting the back of the net, everyone in the world - EXCEPT THE FRIGGING REF - knew it was NOT offside. Had he had that information, he could have made a just ruling. The solution is NOT machines, but rather,

1. flow of information to the decision makers in a manner that does not disrupt the game or introduce unnecessary breaks and

2. better training and more consistent application of the laws of the game from ref to ref across cultures and countries.

So me see it. (SMSI)

Agreed!
btw - On #2: FIFA has been in .an ever changing world-wide co-operative effort with FAs to have all refs apply the Laws in a just and similar manner.

All local FAs now follow FIFA's pre-tournament and pre-match preparation and rituals...but each country has its own personality and customs and each country's refs call the game within that context of the country's football culture and practice and as the country's personality dictates.

...so the fight' continues to seek uniform application of The Laws.