Instant on screen replay for refs

[Official Old Man]

Those in their seats at half time would have seen the penalty kick about. One 'goal' was disputed and it took less than 15 seconds to put a slow motion video up on the screens with the operator able to forward and reverse the video in very slow motion. Only goes to prove the technology is there and ready to use.

 

[WhingForPresident]

The problem with this is, where does it stop? Do we start stopping the game for contentious throw-in decisions and every time a player chucks themselves to ground in an attempt to win a free-kick? It's another step in the direction of American football for me, and if there were no contentious decisions there would be so much less to talk about.

Also, if a decision was particularly awkward it may even take a few minutes to decide, which could kill the momentum of the game. I'd leave it as it is, but then I'm old school.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

The problem with this is, where does it stop?

Exactly this. It's unworkable.

 

[Bob!]

Those in their seats at half time would have seen the penalty kick about. One 'goal' was disputed and it took less than 15 seconds to put a slow motion video up on the screens with the operator able to forward and reverse the video in very slow motion. Only goes to prove the technology is there and ready to use.

...and the screen didn't prove anything because the goalie was blocking the view of the ball.

It 'looked like' it had crossed the line, which is good enough for a kickabout but wouldn't be enough proof for a 4th Official to make a decision.

 

[pornomagboy]

Each team should get 3 challenges to use through out the game so they have to use them wisely

 

[clippedgull]

Not for me. I like the unpredictable decision making. Can be frustrating at times but at least a 'wrong' decision wakes the crowd up.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

...and the screen didn't prove anything because the goalie was blocking the view of the ball.

It 'looked like' it had crossed the line, which is good enough for a kickabout but wouldn't be enough proof for a 4th Official to make a decision.

Obviously, there would be one in line with the goal line, if we were using goal line technology properly.

 

[seagully]

Goal line technology YES. Instant replays a huge NO.

 

[brightn'ove]

...and the screen didn't prove anything because the goalie was blocking the view of the ball.

It 'looked like' it had crossed the line, which is good enough for a kickabout but wouldn't be enough proof for a 4th Official to make a decision.

yes but one would assume that if it was a professional decision system they would use hawkeye or multiple camera angles...

 

[brightn'ove]

The problem with this is, where does it stop? Do we start stopping the game for contentious throw-in decisions and every time a player chucks themselves to ground in an attempt to win a free-kick? It's another step in the direction of American football for me, and if there were no contentious decisions there would be so much less to talk about.

Also, if a decision was particularly awkward it may even take a few minutes to decide, which could kill the momentum of the game. I'd leave it as it is, but then I'm old school.

To an extent i do agree that any form of technology which slows the game down shouldn't be implemented, but if it was strictly only contentious decisions when the ball is already dead, and a team could only have a certain number of 'challenges' per game, i think it could possibly work. It works in rugby and rugby is 100% about momentum.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Those in their seats at half time would have seen the penalty kick about. One 'goal' was disputed and it took less than 15 seconds to put a slow motion video up on the screens with the operator able to forward and reverse the video in very slow motion. Only goes to prove the technology is there and ready to use.

Someone's already asked the 'where does it stop' question but, similarly to that, there's always going to be an element of perspectice to some decisions that a tv replay won't help with.

As an example, how often do you see a player going down easily after a possible foul, with the decision then scrutinised for weeks on tv with no-one able to agree on whether it should've been given or not.

In most cases the referees are correct, it's just that the mistakes are obviously that much more noticeable.

 

[father_and_son]

Transmitter in the ball... Sensors in the goals... Light in the stand or even on the goal itself. Ball crosses the line, light comes on - simple as.

EVERYTHING else should remain exactly as is. Ref makes a call in game based on what he can see. Right or Wrong, the teams live with it. FA can review anything the ref didn't see (or got wrong) and impose appropriate sanction or repel a card - but the score stands.

This would be the best of both worlds - surely?

 

[Napper]

Dont touch it.

Injustices are part of the beautiful game.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Dont touch it.

Injustices are part of the beautiful game.

I agree. Sometimes a good angry crowd makes the game so much more fun, and fires the players up. I hate it when whimpering managers come out with bullshit like "These refereeing errors are costing people's livelihoods".

Name me one footballer or manager who's entire career has been ruined solely by a single refereeing error?

Leave them be, and let's have a bit more respect for them while we're about. Crack down on swearing & abuse of officials.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

F1 uses a mix of immediate penalty [drive thru during a race] and deferred [back 10 grid places in next race].

I would like to see some post match analysis in football [a stewards inquiry if you like], esp on diving and a player can receive a one match ban if post match video evidence clearly shows a dive - at the moment, the divers have little to lose and everything to gain.

Likewise, during a match, use a sin-bin alongside a yellow card - so not just a yellow, but team are a man down for 10 minutes too.

Such penalties will help to deter these offenses from being committed without actually slowing the game down with live video replay. I do believe that football can learn a lot from where rugby has moved on to in the last 15-20 years.

 

[brightn'ove]

F1 uses a mix of immediate penalty [drive thru during a race] and deferred [back 10 grid places in next race].

I would like to see some post match analysis in football [a stewards inquiry if you like], esp on diving and a player can receive a one match ban if post match video evidence clearly shows a dive - at the moment, the divers have little to lose and everything to gain.

Likewise, during a match, use a sin-bin alongside a yellow card - so not just a yellow, but team are a man down for 10 minutes too.

Such penalties will help to deter these offenses from being committed without actually slowing the game down with live video replay. I do believe that football can learn a lot from where rugby has moved on to in the last 15-20 years.

I also think that if a player is injured as a result of a foul, the player committing the foul should leave the field of play for the same amount of time as the injured player while they receive treatment. It makes no sense that the team which is fouled has to be disadvantaged.

 

[brightn'ove]

I agree. Sometimes a good angry crowd makes the game so much more fun, and fires the players up. I hate it when whimpering managers come out with bullshit like "These refereeing errors are costing people's livelihoods".

Name me one footballer or manager who's entire career has been ruined solely by a single refereeing error?

Leave them be, and let's have a bit more respect for them while we're about. Crack down on swearing & abuse of officials.

I know it's not exactly career ending, but peterborough were essentially relegated because of a poor refereeing decision last season.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I know it's not exactly career ending, but peterborough were essentially relegated because of a poor refereeing decision last season.

No, no they weren't.

They were relegated because they were total crap for the first couple of months of the season and because they didn't get enough points over 46 games.

Refereeing decisions, like it or not, even themselves out. We got a shocker of a penalty against us v Bournemouth. By all accounts, our penalty against Millwall was a poor decision too. Nobody is relegated or promoted because of one decision.

 

[brightn'ove]

No, no they weren't.

They were relegated because they were total crap for the first couple of months of the season and because they didn't get enough points over 46 games.

Refereeing decisions, like it or not, even themselves out. We got a shocker of a penalty against us v Bournemouth. By all accounts, our penalty against Millwall was a poor decision too. Nobody is relegated or promoted because of one decision.

True, but they were relegated with an unprecedentedly high points total, and they were winning against palace until a poor decision turned the game.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I also think that if a player is injured as a result of a foul, the player committing the foul should leave the field of play for the same amount of time as the injured player while they receive treatment. It makes no sense that the team which is fouled has to be disadvantaged.

Then you open up a scenario where a total clogger from one team- a sacrificial lamb, if you will- clatters Lionel Messi, knowing both may be off the pitch for however long, but with a totally different impact on each side. Or, on a similar note, what's to stop a player going down & receiving "treatment" for twenty minutes just to keep Rooney, Ronaldo or Ivrahimovic off the park following a slight foul?

Plus, some awful tackles result in no injury, and some innocuous ones break legs. Removing the offender from the pitch should be- as it is currently- down to the tackle itself, never the outcome.