TV Replays ? Extra officials ? NSC DECIDES

[Barrow Boy]

Professional Ice Hockey has always used Goal Judges where an instant decision is given as to whether a goal has been scored or not (red light/green light). It doesn't slow the game up and they also have 2 referees on the ice throughout the game. OK it's a much smaller area of play to cover but you don't get anywhere near the amount of controversy that exsists in football.
A lot more violence and blood, agreed, but they're not fighting over a handball decision, did it cross the line, was he offside or "ref, he just kicked me!".

It's the old hockey saying "Never mind the puck, let's get on with the game!"

They like each other really! I love the comment after about 1:15 sec "This might be what the Senators needed"



[yt]N1-25s4uwFQ[/yt]

 

[Mendoza]

Who HONESTLY knew it was handball before the protests and the TV replays? - watching it in real time and that

 

[Brovion]

... But I just don't think football lends itself to TV replays. There would HAVE to be a break in play before a replay could be looked at, and all kinds of things could happen in that time between an appeal and the game stopping to look at it. You could even end up with one appeal pending the other if one is lodged soon after the first but before the game has stopped.

I just think the more you bring in in terms of TV replays, the more rules you'll have to invent to accomodate it. And the more rules there are, the more controversies and arguments you're going to get.

There are probably more breaks in play than you realise. The only time you get a prolonged spell is when teams are passing it unthreateningly amongst themselves and no one's going to challenge that. For the rest of the time it tends to be quite quick and most of the decisions are going to be for things that happen immediately, e.g. was that goal offside? Even if the goal is the result of a measured build up you've only got to take it back to the last dead ball, e.g. was it our throw-in thirty seconds ago? With challenges limited (maybe an unsuccessful challenge results in the loss of a substitution) it will be used sparingly.

Agree with your second point though. More rules = more controversy.

EDIT: I should say I'm neutral about the whole concept. I don't really like a system or rules that can't be applied from the world cup final down to the Dog and Duck Reserves on a Sunday morning.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Who HONESTLY knew it was handball before the protests and the TV replays? - watching it in real time and that

The linesman had a better view than me.

 

[Mendoza]

The linesman had a better view than me.

The linesman had 2 Irish defenders, Shay Given and William Gallas between him and the ball/Henry's hand.

The ref had 3 Irish defenders between him and the ball/Henry's hand.

 

[CHAPPERS]

The linesman had 2 Irish defenders, Shay Given and William Gallas between him and the ball/Henry's hand.

The ref had 3 Irish defenders between him and the ball/Henry's hand.

BALLS. The linesman had a clear view, watch it again. I'm not moaning abut the decision by the way, mistakes can be made. I just don't think anyone can say it wasn't deliberate. The linesman should have seen it though.

 

[Easy 10]

Either way, an official behind the goal-line would DEFFO have called it. He'd even have been on the side of the goal where Henry palmed it (as the lino was on the opposite end).

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Leave it alone - the refs sincerely do their best and it all evens out in the end. Introducing video / electronic countermeasures etc is just a waste of money. Part of the enjoyment of the game is debating decisions. What the hell would there be to talk about after a game if all decisions were 100% clinically, undesputably correct?

However I see nothing wrong with retrospective red cards for diving, cheating etc. If this was introduced, players would instantly stop throwing themselves to the floor in the box and start to think about trying to score goals. Also, awarding of penalties has all got silly. The slightest contact of defender or goalkeeper on attacker now seems to be awarded a penalty. What happened to intent? If a geniune attempt is made to play the ball, the defenders/goalkeepers should be given the benefit of the doubt. This would also help to reduce the diving.

 

[Spanish Seagulls]

Replays but only for "serious" incidents

 

[Easy 10]

Leave it alone - the refs sincerely do their best and it all evens out in the end. Introducing video / electronic countermeasures etc is just a waste of money. Part of the enjoyment of the game is debating decisions. What the hell would there be to talk about after a game if all decisions were 100% clinically, undesputably correct?

However I see nothing wrong with retrospective red cards for diving, cheating etc. If this was introduced, players would instantly stop throwing themselves to the floor in the box and start to think about trying to score goals. Also, awarding of penalties has all got silly. The slightest contact of defender or goalkeeper on attacker now seems to be awarded a penalty. What happened to intent? If a geniune attempt is made to play the ball, the defenders/goalkeepers should be given the benefit of the doubt. This would also help to reduce the diving.

I largely agree with this, except a couple of points.
Even WITH the use of TV replays, decisions would not be 100% clinically correct. A lot of fouls are still down to an interpretation of the incident. I can see something 3 or 4 times on a replay and STILL not be too sure how much contact there really was etc, so there would still be an element of doubt. You've only got to watch the pundits arguing the toss over a replay to know it still often comes down to opinion.

As for intent - thats almost impossible to read. Was the defender clumsy, or did he really intend to bring him down ? And is "being a bit shit" really an excuse for not giving a pen against someone ? "Well, El Abd stupidly lunged for that ball and caught the guy on the knee, but I think he was trying to get the ball...."
Doesn't work.

I'm finding myself advocating those AAR's behind the goal-lines to help on those decisions.

 

[Easy 10]

Replays but only for "serious" incidents

And what is a "serious" incident ?
OK last nights was a blatant miscarriage of justice, but there is a multitude of situations that can lead directly or indirectly to a goal. Who decides what is serious and what isn't ? If a bad call leads to a goal, how less "serious" can that get ?

The knee-jerk reaction after something like what happened last night is always "get TV replays in", but when you stop and consider the full implications of what that would bring with it, it just seems to me that we'd simply be swapping one huge controversial can of worms for another. It will create more problems than it solves.

Players are cheats, officials need help. Get those two extra guys behind the goal to help during the game, and lets start some PROPER CLOBBERING with retrospective punishments. I'm talking 5 match bans, then 10 matches for a repeat offender, then 15 and so on.

 

[Triggaaar]

Please please please bring in video refs

It's so easy, and it doesn't need to stop the flow of the game much, just on big decisions.

1) Where a striker is on the verge of off-side, I'd like play to continue. If the attacking team score, the linesman can refer it to the video.
2) Penalty decisions can be referred by the ref if he has any doubt
3) Goal line decisions can be referred by the lino
4) And each side gets 1 or 2 referrals per half, that they lose if their appeal is rejected. They can use these for a defined list of major decisions, including the above.

 

[Triggaaar]

And what is a "serious" incident ?
OK last nights was a blatant miscarriage of justice, but there is a multitude of situations that can lead directly or indirectly to a goal. Who decides what is serious and what isn't ? If a bad call leads to a goal, how less "serious" can that get ?

The knee-jerk reaction after something like what happened last night is always "get TV replays in", but when you stop and consider the full implications of what that would bring with it, it just seems to me that we'd simply be swapping one huge controversial can of worms for another. It will create more problems than it solves.

I couldn't disagree more. What problems would it create? This works well in other sports. If you allow the teams 1 or 2 challenges per half, you could include any decision, even throw ins if the team felt that was worth challenging (and with such limited challenges it wouldn't slow the game too much).

lets start some PROPER CLOBBERING with retrospective punishments. I'm talking 5 match bans, then 10 matches for a repeat offender, then 15 and so on.

Well I agree with you there

 

[Triggaaar]

Even WITH the use of TV replays, decisions would not be 100% clinically correct. A lot of fouls are still down to an interpretation of the incident.

No it wouldn't be 100%, like you say some things aren't clear cut. And which way these decisions go doesn't really matter, because although these decisions affect the result of the game, us fans can understand because we know it's a tough call. Goals like last night (and thousands of others) are not a tough call, and it's when those decisions are wrong that we despare.

And it doesn't even itself out. Using the hand of god as an example, how will that ever even itself out? How will last nights decision be evened out?

 

[Arthritic Toe]

And it doesn't even itself out. Using the hand of god as an example, how will that ever even itself out? How will last nights decision be evened out?

Well in 1966 we won the world cup because a Russian linesman mistakenly said Geoff Hursts 'goal' had crossed the line.
In 1986 we lost the world cup (maybe), because the ref missed a handball.
Thats how it evens out.
You win some you lose some. Over time you will get approximately the same number of wrong decisions for you as against you.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

Refs have to retire early because they are not able to keep up having to run the whole pitch alongside players half their age. But those refs have so much experince it's such a waste.

Have an experinced/retired ref with a TV screen and micked up to the actual ref. he would have been able to see incidents like last nights and told the ref within seconds.

He would not have actual power over the ref on the field but would be a respected official and have the benefit of technology. The man in the middle would be a fool to ignore that kind of advice.

 

[clapham_gull]

At a game at this level with so much at stake, deliberate cheating on this scale has to be eliminated. If it can't be done by replaying games, than bans have to applied retrospectively.

I wouldn't think it all over the top for Henry to be banned from the World Cup completely.

He's already played there before, so perhaps instead of asking the Irish to "deal with" not qualifying, we should be applying it to Henry.

Sorry mate, you got your team through, but frankly with your actions you don't deserve the opportunity to represent your country in the premium event.

.. deal with it.

 

[Brovion]

I largely agree with this, except a couple of points.
Even WITH the use of TV replays, decisions would not be 100% clinically correct. A lot of fouls are still down to an interpretation of the incident. I can see something 3 or 4 times on a replay and STILL not be too sure how much contact there really was etc, so there would still be an element of doubt. You've only got to watch the pundits arguing the toss over a replay to know it still often comes down to opinion.

As for intent - thats almost impossible to read. Was the defender clumsy, or did he really intend to bring him down ? And is "being a bit shit" really an excuse for not giving a pen against someone ? "Well, El Abd stupidly lunged for that ball and caught the guy on the knee, but I think he was trying to get the ball...."
Doesn't work.

I'm finding myself advocating those AAR's behind the goal-lines to help on those decisions.

I DO agree with the general gist of your argument, and although I can see the benefits I'm not 100% sure that video replays are the way forward. And as I said I have a natural aversion to something that can't be applied to all levels of the game.

Getting back to the NFL it should be noted that an NFL match has SEVEN active officials whereas soccerball tries to get by with three. (Forget the fourth official who plays no part in the actual officiating of the match) As your last line suggests maybe extra officials is the way forward before we contemplate video?

 

[Easy 10]

I couldn't disagree more. What problems would it create? This works well in other sports. If you allow the teams 1 or 2 challenges per half, you could include any decision, even throw ins if the team felt that was worth challenging (and with such limited challenges it wouldn't slow the game too much).

It all sounds fine and dandy in theory, but we all know that managers will end up manipulating this "two challenges" rule to suit their own ends. We already have timewasting at the end of games, managers using up subs to break the flow of the game up and relieve pressure. Imagine if he's still got a couple of challenges up his sleeve as well. Hanging on to a slender lead, getting a battering from the opposition, into the last 5-10 minutes of the half...you could end up with a load of worthless "challenges" just to use the time up.

And when do you challenge ? Using the NFL method and chucking a red flag on the pitch is fine, but you've presumably got to wait until the ball goes dead before the incident can be reviewed, and ALL SORTS can happen in a game before it stops again. Its easy to call for these TV replays, but how SPECIFICALLY would you implement this challenge rule ?

 

[Easy 10]

I DO agree with the general gist of your argument, and although I can see the benefits I'm not 100% sure that video replays are the way forward. And as I said I have a natural aversion to something that can't be applied to all levels of the game.

Getting back to the NFL it should be noted that an NFL match has SEVEN active officials whereas soccerball tries to get by with three. (Forget the fourth official who plays no part in the actual officiating of the match) As your last line suggests maybe extra officials is the way forward before we contemplate video?

I've not seen enough Europa games this season to gage for myself whether the AAR behind the goal-line has been a complete success or not, maybe the jury is still out. I did see one of the earlier games (Everton against some greek mob), and what was VERY noticable was the lack of pushing, shoving, pulling and tugging at corners - and Everton actually scored twice from corners in that game. Players seemed genuinely INHIBITED by that extra official being there, and less inclined to try for the snidey little fouls.

The AAR isn't a perfect solution by any means, but I think its a step in the right direction, and infinately preferable to bringing in TV replays and the RAFT of new legislation you'd have to introduce to accomodate it.