It has been suggested before but with the current speed of the game and the number of incidents happening as well as being able to monitor the complete pitch would it be better to have two referees on the pitch?
2006-06-26 23:47:36 · 14 answers · asked by fkvdmark 4 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ Other - Football
Please only realistic suggestions...
No more Dr. Evil or 22 referees ?!?
2006-06-27 00:09:50 · update #1
Already, there is a referee, 2 linesmen, fourth official and at this years world cup, a fifth official, should anything happen to the rest.
Unlike NFL, football doesnt stop every minute or two, so video wouldnt work: wit would be yet another excuse for timewasting and cheating.
The current system isnt, and never will be perfect, but i do think the other officials should have more of a say if they see an incident another doesnt. At the world cup they have earpieces and mics and this should be the way forward. Yes, video replays can help spot things the eye cant, but we dont want to lose the flow of the game.
So as far as im concerned, they have sufficient officials on the park at all times already.
2006-06-27 01:53:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I like the idea, but why stop at two ? surely if we have one referee per player we would pick up every error, then if there are any major argument between officials over big desicions it could be put to the crowd on a keypad voting system.
Also rather than red cards, what about a Dr Evil style button which drops the offending player into a pit of fire.
SORRY FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE. The truth is they have problems finding enough refeee's at the moment especially for lower league games, and FIFA try to keep the international game as close as possible to the grass roots level.
Its a beautiful game, there's no need to change it, part of the fun is arguments over descisions when the games over.
2006-06-27 06:56:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
After Italy - Australia I've seen some highlights from SWI-UKR. Almost 3 times the ref was blocking the line of movement of players or ball, one time he touched the ball, another the player has turn around him... They were only highlights... Let's figure out what it has been with another puppet between players' legs.
I'm sure only one good ref is needed.
And how two refs will spare? Different half - field? Or watching the same thing? And if they don't agree on the claim?
Today many mistakes are from assistants refs, especially in claiming offsides. Sometime, ref ignore the assistant - seeing no offside - and let players to continue. If defenders stops when seeing assistant's flag, all the refs are in big trouble. I think 1 ref only is better.
2006-06-27 07:34:16 · answer #3 · answered by erri 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In cricket you have two referees, and the third umpire (up in the pavillion watching the replays).
In rugby you've got the referee, linesmen and 3rd umpire...
Doesn't the same apply to football? The number of incidents have more to do with the players on the pitch than the number of referees...
2006-06-27 06:56:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
actually, a dual system is used in American high school leagues. Personally, I think it's worse because you have referees with different working styles so it makes it hard for the players to figure out how they need to play and tons of fouls get ignored in the middle of the field because both referees think the other referee is going to call the foul and by the time they realize the other guy isn't going to, it's too late.
2006-06-27 13:15:20 · answer #5 · answered by Meralee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the present status of the matches being played today is better. Because if there are two refrees there might be a chance wherein a difference in opinion may arise. There is a chance that partiallity may be shown to some players if there are two refrees. If there is only one refree the chances are high that correct decisions can be made in an instant and there would be no conflicts of opinion. The situation is entirely different form that of cricket.
2006-06-27 07:13:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no wont work i think there r 2 linesman to help the main referee and there is a forth referee outside he sometimes help him 2
but 2 referees running with the players in the firld that wont work there is no space for them
a referee is like a King in the field u cant have 2 Kings rule one small country at the same time right :)
2006-06-27 07:22:05 · answer #7 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've always thought that the ref should always be in consultation with a video replay judge should there be any controversy. This doesn't necessarily take any authority away from him but a ref should be professional enough to admit when he's not sure and refer to someone with the facilities to choose different camera angles and play in slow-mo.
Ice hockey does it and it works fine.
2006-06-27 06:55:09 · answer #8 · answered by k² 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would bring in the 'appeal' system that is used in NFL.
The Coach can throw a red flag if he disagrees with a decision and the matter is refered to video replay. If the original decision was correct the coach is penalised (say loose a sub) if the ref was wrong then he knows he was wrong and learns from it.
2006-06-27 06:54:24 · answer #9 · answered by 'Dr Greene' 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Field hockey also has two, each controlling half the pitch. So yes, two would be better if enough suckers could be found!
2006-06-27 07:08:57 · answer #10 · answered by artleyb 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋