Blatter wants TV referrals

[emphyrian]

i like the idea. it works in the other sports and will possibly stop some of the blatant dives and fouls that most of us moan about anyway. one appeal each half isnt too bad considering the managers will likely hold the challenge until the penalty is given/not given or sending off occurs. I think the NFL allow 60 seconds for the decision to be made so wouldnt take up too much extra time.

 

[Postman Pat]

Interpretation is always the key, its not as black-and-white as a line call decision. Thin end of the wedge, and the woolly old buffoon is already talking about "1 or 2 appeals per half". Then when some of those are wasted before another major incident happens later on, we'll end up having appeals for more appeals until practically every major incident decision is subject to a TV replay.

Horrible idea.

Exactly, the referrals in cricket are all based on fact, albeit that hawkeye and snicko are major contributing factors, is there a reason to overturn my decision?

We have all watched enough football where the commentators and pundits can't agree on a penalty or not. Will there be decision by committee? The only real areas of fact are if the player was off-side, or did the ball go out of play, all other decisions are a matter of opinion (taking into account goal-line technology for goals).

 

[Easy 10]

i like the idea. it works in the other sports and will possibly stop some of the blatant dives and fouls that most of us moan about anyway. one appeal each half isnt too bad considering the managers will likely hold the challenge until the penalty is given/not given or sending off occurs. I think the NFL allow 60 seconds for the decision to be made so wouldnt take up too much extra time.

You are aware that NFL is a 60 minute game that takes 3 hours ?

NFL by its nature is structured as a stop-start game, a short burst of action followed by a prolongued period of inaction. It lends itself to replays, they can be easily accomodated. As football is (ideally) a flowing game, it certainly does not.

 

[Easy 10]

Exactly, the referrals in cricket are all based on fact, albeit that hawkeye and snicko are major contributing factors, is there a reason to overturn my decision?

We have all watched enough football where the commentators and pundits can't agree on a penalty or not. Will there be decision by committee? The only real areas of fact are if the player was off-side, or did the ball go out of play, all other decisions are a matter of opinion (taking into account goal-line technology for goals).

Indeed.
Referee's are given a degree of leaway by the fact that they only get to see the incident once, from one angle, at full speed, and have to make their decision based on that. Sometimes they get it wrong, but its understandable and whilst sometimes frustrating, you just have to accept they can't get it 100% correct all the time.

If you take that away and ask them to review it in slow-motion from x number of angles, then GOD help them if they STILL (apparently) call it wrong. Someone is always going to be unhappy about it, so you're not removing the controversy over some decisions - in fact, as he's had the "benefit" of seeing a replay, you're just making it worse.

So many decisions are borderline, grey areas that boil down to interpretation. You'll never get every decision 100% correct, and yet thats what will be expected if referees are being dragged to the touchline 5/6/7/8 times a game.

 

[dazzer6666]

It generally works in Rugby and Cricket. Not sure about Football. I don't think it's a good idea.

Don't think they do - in cricket only the on field captain can challenge, and in rugby it's only the ref that can call for a review. In football, only the latter is remotely possible IMO and the only in limited circumstances (ie matters of 100% provable or very nearly 100% provable fact such as ball crossing the line, offside, contact etc). I think the rugby model would be at least worth a trial - can see a ref, at next break in play, asking for TMO view on 'was he offside or not' or 'any reason why I should not award a penalty' type questions. Letting coaches appeal would be a disaster.

 

[Joe Gatting's Dad]

Football is not like rugby or cricket which are very much stop and start. Football is free-flowing and too fast.

Appeals against red cards may be possible, as play has naturally stopped.

But you can see side like Charlton appealing in injury time, just to disrupt the game still further.

 

[Easy 10]

Don't think they do - in cricket only the on field captain can challenge, and in rugby it's only the ref that can call for a review. In football, only the latter is remotely possible IMO and the only in limited circumstances (ie matters of 100% provable or very nearly 100% provable fact such as ball crossing the line, offside, contact etc). I think the rugby model would be at least worth a trial - can see a ref, at next break in play, asking for TMO view on 'was he offside or not' or 'any reason why I should not award a penalty' type questions. Letting coaches appeal would be a disaster.

The problem with letting the ref decide whether to review, is that it can result in a tendency for the ref to use it as somethig of a crutch. I've seen it in cricket, where an umpire will call for a TV review on a run-out when really the decision was already pretty clear-cut. And once everyone knows the ref has the facility to review an incident, in football, I think he will inevitably be put under pressure to use it.

Offside would be a NIGHTMARE when you look at the "was he interfering with play ?" aspect, then getting tied up in knots over the phase of play. And the business of was there contact is always a hot potato - was that enough to send him over ? etc etc.

Nope, technology should only be used in the instance of line calls, because that is truly black or white, its either over the line or it isn't. Everything else boils down to interpretations, and TV replays often cannot clear that up.

 

[Rookie]

I think the rugby model would be at least worth a trial - can see a ref, at next break in play, asking for TMO view on 'was he offside or not' or 'any reason why I should not award a penalty' type questions. Letting coaches appeal would be a disaster.

But the game would have moved on by the next break in play.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Coaches would be allowed to challenge at least one decision per half. Trials could start next year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29109481

What he ACTUALLY wants is more breaks in the game so he can sell the game to the yanks and they can put more advertisements in.

 

[TomandJerry]

Blatter OUT!

 

[kevo]

On the plus side, the Leeds winner in the opening game last season would not have been allowed on appeal given that everyone in the ground other than the officials could see the handball

Not necessarily. The two 'challenges' per half may well have been used up by then, particularly as the goal was scored deep into added time. Another problem, then - despite the system, controversial last minute decisions which directly affect the result of the match may not be allowed to be appealed. Football is a free-flowing game, it's not the NFL or cricket. It would irretrievably change the nature of the game as we know it - for the worse.

 

[Easy 10]

This TV appeals system is typically half-baked bunkum from Blatter, he's clearly not thought it through one iota. The process to implement it would require a maHOOsive amount of new legislation to be introduced in order to accomodate it into the game.

Totally unworkable IMO, [MENTION=11720]kevo[/MENTION] is bang on. It would ruin the game as we know it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Regardless of what he has proposed, the fact that these ideas have come out of his decrepit and utterly corrupted mouth are an instant turn-off.

I cannot take the man seriously. He seems to propose these ideas on a whim, initially completely against the intervention of cameras but now after goal-line technology a veritable camera convert. Whereas there seems a general recognition in other walks of life that multi-repeated terms of office leads to stale and corruptible leadership this seems to have passed Blatter by.

In many ways he's similar to Bernie Ecclestone, but at least F1 has many other people with intelligence who help keep the ship broadly on the right course. Blatter, on the other hand, is the Dung Xiao Ping of world sport - a totalitarian leader in a corrupted state wilfully ignorant of the sporting world around him.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

I've always liked Brian Glanville's description of Blatter as a man who has 50 new ideas a day, 51 of which are useless.

 

[Seasider78]

This TV appeals system is typically half-baked bunkum from Blatter, he's clearly not thought it through one iota. The process to implement it would require a maHOOsive amount of new legislation to be introduced in order to accomodate it into the game.

Totally unworkable IMO, [MENTION=11720]kevo[/MENTION] is bang on. It would ruin the game as we know it.

Agree and you would also need to significantly increase the camera coverage at games to ensure you had a suitable number of angles to resolve any decisions.

My other concern is there are enough avenues for teams to disrupt the flow of the game and run down the clock and can see this system being abused to break up teams momentum and use up additional minutes.

Blatter once said something I agree with that the game should be the same at grass roots level as the top level shame he seems to have forgotten that of late

 

[Acker79]

I've yet to hear a way to introduce video replays that doesn't ruin the game, isn't easily open to abuse, and doesn't require completely re-writing the laws of the game.

Having said that, video replay technology is a change a lot of people have called for. Andy Townsend tries to make every refereeing decision into an example of why we need it, even when it is an example of how it won't help (no clear right decision even on multiple replays) or how it isn't necessary (referees getting it right).

Has anyone else noticed how Blatter gets behind things he has previously stoutly opposed when he is talking about re-election, or when he is under particular criticism? Goal line technology provided a good destraction for all those corruption accusations, didn't it?

 

[melias shoes]

Actually don't think this is too bad an idea, but it would have to be limited to specific circumstances. Worth a trial anyway, if it doesn't work then ditch it.

No,it's pathetic. How much time would it take sorting out the referral and what then when they didn't agree with the decision. Blatter is an absolute cock. Plus the referral would probably be sold to the highest bidder and be mentioned when the result of it was announced.

 

[nwgull]

I think it's worth a trial at least. Only one unsuccessful appeal per half should be enough to stop coaches making frivolous appeals. I can't understand the negativity towards it when similar systems - i.e with a finite number of incorrect appeals - have worked well in cricket and tennis.

 

[kevo]

I think it's worth a trial at least. Only one unsuccessful appeal per half should be enough to stop coaches making frivolous appeals. I can't understand the negativity towards it when similar systems - i.e with a finite number of incorrect appeals - have worked well in cricket and tennis.

Erm,because it's a COMPLETELY different type of game. Both cricket and tennis have constant breaks in play. Football is meant to be a free-flowing game. It's an absolutely terrible idea.

What would happen if one team thought they had a good shout for a penalty, but the ref waved play on, the other team went up the other end and scored? The fans of team B would think they'd scored a good goal and would be celebrating. The teams are at the centre circle ready to kick off but then the manager from team A appeals. Everyone stands around, and a minute or two later - although the evidence is not totally conclusive - it's decided a penalty should be awarded. It would be absolute chaos.

It's not even just that. Whole matches would centre on when and if coaches make appeals on decisions. It would totally change the focus and emphasis of the game.

 

[nwgull]

Erm,because it's a COMPLETELY different type of game. Both cricket and tennis have constant breaks in play. Football is meant to be a free-flowing game. It's an absolutely terrible idea.

What would happen if one team thought they had a good shout for a penalty, but the ref waved play on, the other team went up the other end and scored? The fans of team B would think they'd scored a good goal and would be celebrating. The teams are at the centre circle ready to kick off but then the manager from team A appeals. Everyone stands around, and a minute or two later - although the evidence is not totally conclusive - it's decided a penalty should be awarded. It would be absolute chaos.

It's not even just that. Whole matches would centre on when and if coaches make appeals on decisions. It would totally change the focus and emphasis of the game.

Imagine the team that gets the stonewall penalty turned down is BHA, and the opposition that runs the other end and scores is Crystal Palace. Would you complain about the chaos then?

Like I said: Worth a trial. It's not as if experimenting in an U20s tournament will spoil our enjoyment if it does prove to be unworkable with football.