da fazobetai：
da cassino： More needs to be done to cut cheating out of the game…………
In a bank, with the constant handling of cash in and out, cash differences happen. Once noted the cashier can spend an age going through their transactions to find it, after making sure the cash bundles are right, only to have no joy. Another set of eyes on the transactions though can often spot where the problem occurs straight away. What has this got to do with football though?
Burnley manager Brain Laws has every reason to be angry after his side lost another fight in their battle to remain in England’s top league, after a very dodgy penalty decision went against them and was converted, with their game against Blackburn.
In his comments about the incident that led to the penalty in which Blackburn’s Martin Olsson was alleged to tack a dive before clashing with Burnley keeper Jenson, Laws told TV reporters;
“I’m not blaming the player, he’s done everything possible to try and get a goal against us through a penalty or his own work but I’m disappointed because we want to see honesty and we want to see the referee get the correct decisions.”
He’s not blaming the player but he wants to see ‘honesty’ in the game? Well Brain, if the player was honest in the first place he wouldn’t have dived to win the penalty. As a result you wouldn’t have to praise him for doing ‘everything possible’ to get penalty against your side in your post match interviews. Referees would be able to get decisions a lot more accurate if cheating was stamped out of the game.
Burnley’s remaining opponents be warned; Laws tactics are going to consist around telling his players to get in the box and dive.
The referee got it wrong it was a dive. Olsson has since admitted that and went to the extent in saying he did it because he knew referee in question, Mike Dean, gives the most penalties. How does he have the audacity to say this? Well, probably because he thinks he has a good chance of getting away with this as in Mr Dean’s match report, he will write at the time he thought Olsson was fouled. Like in a bank, cashiers will be conned with fake notes once in a while. Mistakes happen, we are human. Referees are human. As FIFA have decided not to pursue the proposed introduction of video technology surely there has to be other ways to cut out incidents like diving in football?
Sir Alex Ferguson made a very good point about the amount of ex managers out of the game following his own comments regarding Rio Ferdinand getting banned for a off the ball incident against Hull and Steven Gerrard getting away with a similar incident against Portsmouth. Why doesn’t the FA or the Premier League set up a panel that meets weekly to judge decisions such as these and actions them accordingly?
Under the current laws of the game the FA will only take action via video replays if the referee fails to see it and therefore doesn’t mentions it in his report. So if he does see it, he has made the correct decision then? He can’t, being human, have made a mistake at the time? Mike Dean made a mistake Sunday did he not? But Olsson admitted it and yet did so because he thinks he can get away with it.
What sort of example does that set? How does that clean up the problems in the game? How does that make referees jobs easier?
We already have established Brain Law’s next Burnley team talk! Get in the box and dive! Martin Olsson has got away with diving once. He’ll probably do it again, win another penalty via diving and then when he is fouled in the box the ref will think he’s diving and wave play on.
As video technology isn’t going to be introduced live at games and as operating on referees to give them six pairs of eyes is even less likely, why is a panel not set up using ex players, ex managers, referees and ex referees to examine testing decision that match day officials get wrong at the weekend?
Ok so things like the penalty that Blackburn scored wouldn’t be reversed but if Olsson was punished what ever the referee’s view was at the time, then it would cut out him doing it again and other players doing it again and therefore wouldn’t set a bad example which filters through to the grass roots level of the game.
Gerrard’s elbow against Michael Brown would have been dealt with the same level of consistence as Rio Ferdinand’s against Hull.
In March, commenting on Thierry Henry’s famous hand ball against Rep. Of Ireland. Frank Lampard admitted he’d do the same for England. Doesn’t make it right though even if he does and we do win the World Cup and it would defiantly created up- roar if a similar thing happened against England. Lampard wouldn’t dare think it if Henry was punished properly.
It wouldn’t ruin the game, it would clean up the cheating and give the players something more to think about rather than perfecting the art of conning a ref and at worst getting a yellow card. It would more than likely be controversial to start with if a panel to review certain incidents in games, but if stuck with would cut out, elbows, handballs, diving, penalty area wrestling and other unfair advantages players try to get away with. It would keep the human element FIFA crave to keep in the game too. It would assist referees rather than undermined them, strengthening the good nature of the game.
How does this entire link in with finding a cash difference in a bank? Well, like the example of the first paragraph, a weekly Premier League Decision Panel will act as another pair of eyes. A fresh pair of eyes that would solve problems quickly, rather than having the same cashier going round and round in circles looking for their cash difference- a lot like some referees and their decision making following unlawful actions of players.
Written by Luke Harrison