Boss left fuming after Gunners defeat

[Footymad]

Pulis says Albion hard done by after Madley decisions - External Link (http://www.footymad.com/west-bromwich-albion/news/tmnw/boss_left_fuming_after_gunners_defeat_911731/index.shtml)

[goodlordmurphy]

For once Pulis has my total sympathy...outrageous decisions.

[baggieal]

For once Pulis has my total sympathy...outrageous decisions.

Ref should be banned for that! Would drop Nyom as well for a pathetic tackle, and send Livermore and Rondon for community service ( hard labour )!

More noise in McDonalds than the Emirates last night.....................

[BaggieBlood]

At places like Arsenal, you've got to have a fair ref and you've got to finish your chances, as you'll rarely get more than a couple of good ones.

If we'd got the pen, not hit the post or livermore banged in the ensuing chance we may have seen a different result.

Jrod also had a header cleared off the line.

This is why need video tech. asap.

Relying on a fat bloke 20 meters away, with a player obscuring his vision is not the way forward in the 21st century.

[talkSAFT]

You could argue (no - not argue - debate!!) that it's just a game, and the ref can only give what he sees, and that he's going to make (say) 4 or 5 wrong decisions in 90 minutes. In the same debate you could just accept refs getting it wrong, and wish Action Replays hadn't affected Cricket and RU like it has. How far do you take the technology? Action Replays for throw-in being taken 5 yards further upfield, etc etc

(I usually have to get the 17:09 train from Hawthorns Halt, and I don't want to miss that). Debate.

[Albionic68]

You could argue (no - not argue - debate!!) that it's just a game, and the ref can only give what he sees, and that he's going to make (say) 4 or 5 wrong decisions in 90 minutes. In the same debate you could just accept refs getting it wrong, and wish Action Replays hadn't affected Cricket and RU like it has. How far do you take the technology? Action Replays for throw-in being taken 5 yards further upfield, etc etc

(I usually have to get the 17:09 train from Hawthorns Halt, and I don't want to miss that). Debate.

All things considered I think the 17:19 hrs would be a better bet ;D .

[mickd1961]

At places like Arsenal, you've got to have a fair ref and you've got to finish your chances, as you'll rarely get more than a couple of good ones.

If we'd got the pen, not hit the post or livermore banged in the ensuing chance we may have seen a different result.

Jrod also had a header cleared off the line.

This is why need video tech. asap.

Relying on a fat bloke 20 meters away, with a player obscuring his vision is not the way forward in the 21st century.

I agree BB....in 50 years from now football's rulers will p I s s themselves laughing at how backward the footballl "leaders" were during this generation.

I couldn't give a toss if the game takes 15 minutes longer due to tech,one thing that could change is 15 minutes given to half time.

As a player I hated the 15 minute break,5 minutes for a p I s s and a line of cocaine was plenty enough.

I'd also be happy with a match lasting 80 minutes if it meant every decision that mattered was correct.

I'm sick of refs who are so "in love" with the big clubs that the likes of us get shafted time and again.

I'm a fan of American Football and the replays work really well over there,they also have the tradition of making a match day an event rather than arriving at 30 seconds to kick off then leaving 5 minutes before the end to be first in the bus queue.

[holmleighchris]

American football hardly flows does it? Well suited to the idea.
What would you do? Let each club have a maximum number of replays per game? Leave it to the referee's discretion? Have another official looking at every incident?
The first would not necessarily right every wrong as a club could run out of appeals.
The second may do but as the ref you'd probably think you had called it right anyway.
The thirdwould make the ref lazy. He'd just leave it to the other bloke. Indeed, he wouldn't need to be out there at all.

[goodlordmurphy]

You could argue (no - not argue - debate!!) that it's just a game, and the ref can only give what he sees, and that he's going to make (say) 4 or 5 wrong decisions in 90 minutes. In the same debate you could just accept refs getting it wrong, and wish Action Replays hadn't affected Cricket and RU like it has. How far do you take the technology? Action Replays for throw-in being taken 5 yards further upfield, etc etc

(I usually have to get the 17:09 train from Hawthorns Halt, and I don't want to miss that). Debate.

I am not a great fan of American Football but that game has evolved and takes three to four hours to sqeeze in a one hour game...I know a great deal of this is for advertising purposes but they do 'stop the clock' and investigate a lot of 'plays'.

I for one would not mind the game stretched out to however long it takes 'to get it right' I have been advocating for a long time, more officials too...a Ref in each half...an assistant on each side line up to half way...there is enough money in football now to pay them.

[Baggies_Boy_Tony]

I for one don't want the game stretched past the 100 mins. it sometimes takes with added time.
Agree on a ref. in each half, but in some games there are already assistants on the bye line, but they never seem to give any decisions, so what's the point?

[curlybaggie]

The thirdwould make the ref lazy. He'd just leave it to the other bloke. Indeed, he wouldn't need to be out there at all.[/QUOTE]

Rugby Union has become very much like that now Chris, the referee seems to go to the video ref nearly every time a try is scored, they seem scared to make a decision these days.