| Big screen incident 13:42 - Oct 20 with 5412 views | perchrockjack |
Apparently human error was responsible for showing buck land tackle on ayes.
We re fully co operating with enquiry.
Ffs |  |
| |  |
| Big screen incident on 13:51 - Oct 20 with 3678 views | fbreath |
They were making a big fuss about it this morning on talksport.
Hughes not happy apparently (nothing new I know)
They did show it about 3 times and the boos from the crowd grew louder with each viewing. Myself and those around me in the stadium where surprised they showed it. |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| Big screen incident on 14:33 - Oct 20 with 3569 views | JackFish |
Who is responsible for deciding what is shown on the screen? And how are they supposed to judge what is and isn't controversial? |  | | |
| Big screen incident on 14:47 - Oct 20 with 3528 views | SgorioFruit |
And why wouldnt we be allowed to show it |  |
| |
| Big screen incident on 15:17 - Oct 20 with 3475 views | londonlisa2001 |
Why on earth would Hughes be annoyed at us showing what was seemingly a perfectly fair and legal tackle on the big screens? Don't understand how that could possibly be wrong. It wasn't even a foul so on that basis we couldn't show any tackle on the screens, a point that we will surely make if we have any sense whatsoever.
The only way that we could be investigated is if they think the referee was
completely wrong. How can our big screen operators possibly be the ones to judge?
I don't think we should remotely cooperate with any enquiry. | | | |
| Big screen incident on 15:25 - Oct 20 with 3454 views | LeonisGod |
| Big screen incident on 15:17 - Oct 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Why on earth would Hughes be annoyed at us showing what was seemingly a perfectly fair and legal tackle on the big screens? Don't understand how that could possibly be wrong. It wasn't even a foul so on that basis we couldn't show any tackle on the screens, a point that we will surely make if we have any sense whatsoever.
The only way that we could be investigated is if they think the referee was
completely wrong. How can our big screen operators possibly be the ones to judge?
I don't think we should remotely cooperate with any enquiry. |
The criteria down the Lierty seem pretty straightforward anyway:
Is the item an advert = yes - show on screen
Is the item an advert = no - don't show on screen
Hughes' whinge (again) seems a load of guff to me. At some grounds you get to see most of the match, replays and all. Arsenal springs to mind. |  | | |
| Big screen incident on 15:26 - Oct 20 with 3453 views | somersetsimon |
| Big screen incident on 14:33 - Oct 20 by JackFish |
Who is responsible for deciding what is shown on the screen? And how are they supposed to judge what is and isn't controversial? |
I assume that "non-controversial" means replaying goals and near misses. Of course, these could be controversial if there was a refereeing error in the lead up to the goal. Could they show a disallowed goal and risk inciting the crowd if they could all see that the goal should have stood? Or what if they replayed a goal by the opposition and we all (including the referee) saw that the ball was deliberately handled in?
Replaying that Butland tackle had the sole purpose of highlighting that someone thought the referee made a mistake and wanted to show the crowd. I'm not sure what goes through the ref's head when he can see that he missed an obvious red card. On last night's evidence, he certainly didn't look to make amends later in the game!
Mark Hughes has to be careful that he doesn't dig himself into a hole. The incident shown was only controversial because it showed serious foul play by one of his players that could (should?) have resulted in a red card. If the FA deem that this was the sort of controversial incident that shouldn't be replayed, then shouldn't they also have to deal with the foul play? |  | | |
| Big screen incident on 15:31 - Oct 20 with 3436 views | perchrockjack |
F a rules.
It's why we re co operating | |
| |
| Big screen incident on 15:33 - Oct 20 with 3428 views | LeonisGod |
| Big screen incident on 15:26 - Oct 20 by somersetsimon |
I assume that "non-controversial" means replaying goals and near misses. Of course, these could be controversial if there was a refereeing error in the lead up to the goal. Could they show a disallowed goal and risk inciting the crowd if they could all see that the goal should have stood? Or what if they replayed a goal by the opposition and we all (including the referee) saw that the ball was deliberately handled in?
Replaying that Butland tackle had the sole purpose of highlighting that someone thought the referee made a mistake and wanted to show the crowd. I'm not sure what goes through the ref's head when he can see that he missed an obvious red card. On last night's evidence, he certainly didn't look to make amends later in the game!
Mark Hughes has to be careful that he doesn't dig himself into a hole. The incident shown was only controversial because it showed serious foul play by one of his players that could (should?) have resulted in a red card. If the FA deem that this was the sort of controversial incident that shouldn't be replayed, then shouldn't they also have to deal with the foul play? |
You wouldn't want refs to make amends later in the game by showing any favouritism.
Good point regarding Hughes' comments. If we're being investigated because it was controversial, let's see the retrospective 3 game ban for Butland. Plus an extra game for Hughes acting like a twunt. He can't have it both ways. [Post edited 20 Oct 2015 15:34]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Big screen incident on 15:39 - Oct 20 with 3406 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Big screen incident on 15:31 - Oct 20 by perchrockjack |
F a rules.
It's why we re co operating |
Can't see how there can be an FA rule stating that you can't show a tackle that was legal on the screens.
The reason they showed it (the first time) was that it nearly resulted in a goal.
We can then say that on further viewing we thought the referee had made an excellent decision and showed it again to show how close Ayew was to getting there because we didn't think it was contentious.
They can't have it all ways.
Or they could admit that Madley is utterly incompetent and demote him to the Wigan Senior League 4th division which is where he belongs. | | | |
| Big screen incident on 15:41 - Oct 20 with 3403 views | perchrockjack |
There are 4 criteria the last of which is not to highlight a referee decision. | |
| |
| Big screen incident on 15:51 - Oct 20 with 3367 views | londonlisa2001 |
I know - and we weren't - we were highlighting Ayew almost getting there and scoring.
The only way they can claim we were highlighting a ref's decision was if they admit it was wrong in which case 3 game ban for violent play. | | | |
| Big screen incident on 15:53 - Oct 20 with 3366 views | LeonisGod |
| Big screen incident on 15:41 - Oct 20 by perchrockjack |
There are 4 criteria the last of which is not to highlight a referee decision. |
He didn't do anything, so not a decision | | | |
| Big screen incident on 15:57 - Oct 20 with 3353 views | londonlisa2001 |
Exactly.
We were showing a passage of play where no refereeing decision came into it.
They can only say we were wrong if they are saying a decision should have been made. | | | |
| Big screen incident on 17:01 - Oct 20 with 3204 views | sully49 |
Swansea could now find themselves in trouble as Barclays Premier League rules stipulate that big screens should not show controversial incidents or events which question the match officials' judgement.
League rule 39.4.1 says: "The screen shall not be used to show action replays of negative or controversial incidents"; and rule 39.4.2 prevents "any incident which brings into question the judgement of a match official".
Clubs can be fined if they break these |  |
| |
| Big screen incident on 17:13 - Oct 20 with 3174 views | Darran |
Someone told me that the regular screen operator couldn't do it last night so they drafted in the Ospreys people who didn't know the rules. |  |
| |
| Big screen incident on 17:36 - Oct 20 with 3088 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Big screen incident on 17:01 - Oct 20 by sully49 |
Swansea could now find themselves in trouble as Barclays Premier League rules stipulate that big screens should not show controversial incidents or events which question the match officials' judgement.
League rule 39.4.1 says: "The screen shall not be used to show action replays of negative or controversial incidents"; and rule 39.4.2 prevents "any incident which brings into question the judgement of a match official".
Clubs can be fined if they break these |
The only point at which this became controversial though was after the replay was shown.
So the rule can't apply.
If it was a foul and they showed it to question a card or similar then fair enough.
But they showed an incident where we almost got to the ball and scored.
The only protest in real time was Shelvey and no one quite knew what he was protesting about.
When the replay was shown it then became apparent that Madley had missed a possible red card.
So it's the replay that made it a negative or controversial incident, it wasn't a replay of a negative or controversial incident.
Imagine the Maradona handball goal in a modern stadium. They would have replayed that because it was a goal - it was only the replay that showed the handball, so you can't use hindsight and say it's wrong to show the replay because it was controversial.
The only way that the club should be fined is if the PL say that it was obviously negative even before the replay. In other words, it was so apparent to everyone in real time that the referee had got it wrong that the screen people should have instantly known.
If that's the case then player and ref should be banned. | | | |
| Big screen incident on 17:52 - Oct 20 with 3034 views | Joe_bradshaw |
It looked like a studs up challenge at the time which is why there was uproar around the East stand at the time.
Showing the challenge repeatedly on the big screen served to increase that uproar. |  |
| |
| Big screen incident on 18:00 - Oct 20 with 3013 views | somersetsimon |
| Big screen incident on 17:01 - Oct 20 by sully49 |
Swansea could now find themselves in trouble as Barclays Premier League rules stipulate that big screens should not show controversial incidents or events which question the match officials' judgement.
League rule 39.4.1 says: "The screen shall not be used to show action replays of negative or controversial incidents"; and rule 39.4.2 prevents "any incident which brings into question the judgement of a match official".
Clubs can be fined if they break these |
So, if the replay showed that it was a fair tackle, would they still be making this fuss? | | | |
| Big screen incident on 18:02 - Oct 20 with 3000 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Big screen incident on 17:52 - Oct 20 by Joe_bradshaw |
It looked like a studs up challenge at the time which is why there was uproar around the East stand at the time.
Showing the challenge repeatedly on the big screen served to increase that uproar. |
Fair enough - on the TV it didn't (so from the West stand) and also the uproar only seemed to start after the replay.
I'd thought JJS was appealing for handball outside the box to be honest.
I'm just pointing out that they could easily argue that was not the case given there was no refereeing decision made. | | | |
| Big screen incident on 19:00 - Oct 20 with 2862 views | Dewi1jack |
| Big screen incident on 17:13 - Oct 20 by Darran |
Someone told me that the regular screen operator couldn't do it last night so they drafted in the Ospreys people who didn't know the rules. |
Doesn't matter.
Either the ref got the decision right, in which case no controversy or us questioning the ref, because the replays show he was right.
Or the FA have to admit Bobby's a complete knob and punish Butland for serious foul play.
Madley not making a decision (booking/ sending off/ free kick) which allows the FA to take retrospective action against Butland (violent conduct) and the Gog for 1/ being an obnoxious b'stard; 2/ for bringing the game into disrepute for making the comments he did to the press and 3/ for being an obnoxious gog b'stard.
Did I state that I think Hughes is an obnoxious Gog B'stard? |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Big screen incident on 19:12 - Oct 20 with 2829 views | Gh0st |
| Big screen incident on 17:13 - Oct 20 by Darran |
Someone told me that the regular screen operator couldn't do it last night so they drafted in the Ospreys people who didn't know the rules. |
The people who control the screens are based in Preston, so doubt they have anything to do with the Ospreys. |  | | |
| Big screen incident on 19:14 - Oct 20 with 2823 views | SwansNZ |
Agree - It’s only controversial because the ref fecked up yet again.
Stadiums should be able to show what the TV company shows, simple. |  |
| |
| Big screen incident on 19:21 - Oct 20 with 2796 views | Gh0st |
| Big screen incident on 19:14 - Oct 20 by SwansNZ |
Agree - It’s only controversial because the ref fecked up yet again.
Stadiums should be able to show what the TV company shows, simple. |
They don't show them for a reason.
For example if the ref has missed something or made a mistake and then sees it on the screen it could affect his decisions further on in the game.
Its not as simple as stadiums showing whatever they like. | | | |
| Big screen incident on 19:26 - Oct 20 with 2781 views | SwansNZ |
| Big screen incident on 19:21 - Oct 20 by Gh0st |
They don't show them for a reason.
For example if the ref has missed something or made a mistake and then sees it on the screen it could affect his decisions further on in the game.
Its not as simple as stadiums showing whatever they like. |
The ref should watch the game not the screen then. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
