Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
or it would become like cricket where umpires are scared to make a decision themselves so every incident will get referred
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
TV Replays ? Extra officials ? NSC DECIDES
- Thread starter Easy 10
- Start date
or it would become like cricket where umpires are scared to make a decision themselves so every incident will get referred
Because, unlike the linesmen at the side of the pitch, press photographers, warming up subs, etc. the extra official behind the goal block the fans view.
... 
@ those silly complaints before europa games
I wonder what would have happened had we had tv replays in 1983 and whether the ref would have allowed Jimmy Case's goal against Norwich? I am not saying it was definitely a foul but some ref's would have given it.
One reason that I can think of is that the FA is finding hard enough to attract officials to the sprt as it it is. If you're going to nearly double the number of officials needed, there'll be an even bigger shortage at the lower end of the game.
One thing I'm definitely not in favour is video replays; all they'd do is slow the game up and anyone who says that they'll end arguments clearly hasn't been paying attention to what's happened in cricket and rugby where they've clearly not helped in cutting down on contentious decisions.
I like the suggestion of retrospectively banning players found guilty of cheating; that, in, the long run, would stamp out a lot of cheating but it's never going to happen.
American football used to have video replays and they found it was slowing the game down too much - and that's in a sport that by its very nature is stop-start. Now they have a 'challenge' system (a bit like the proposed referral system in cricket) whereby the coach is allowed to challange two decisions a match (I think, or maybe two a half, not sure).
Could we have something like that? Sir Alex doesn't like a ref's decision so he 'challenges' it (In American football the coach throws a red flag onto the pitch) and the video ref reviews the incident. The crucial thing is that if the video is inconclusive then the ruling on the field stands, e.g. if the ref's said no penalty and after umpteen replays from different angles they still can't work out out if there was contact in the box then the decision stays at no penalty. On the other hand blatant miscarriages of justice can be resolved.
Obviously this would have to be limited, say three challenges per game, a bit like substitutes. And like substitutes you don't want to use them up on stupid things so you save them. There are problems, such as how far back can you challenge (logically to the last dead ball situation), but I think it could work.
Could we have something like that? Sir Alex doesn't like a ref's decision so he 'challenges' it (In American football the coach throws a red flag onto the pitch) and the video ref reviews the incident. The crucial thing is that if the video is inconclusive then the ruling on the field stands, e.g. if the ref's said no penalty and after umpteen replays from different angles they still can't work out out if there was contact in the box then the decision stays at no penalty. On the other hand blatant miscarriages of justice can be resolved.
Obviously this would have to be limited, say three challenges per game, a bit like substitutes. And like substitutes you don't want to use them up on stupid things so you save them. There are problems, such as how far back can you challenge (logically to the last dead ball situation), but I think it could work.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Pain in the arse to get two more linesmen for sunday league games
Skint Gull
New member
Totally agree with Brovian. Anyone who watches American Football can see how well the referal system works. I appreciate that it's a very different game and is by its nature much more stop start but i think if managers had 2 challenges per game it could work.
As you say though, the key thing is that it is only there to over-rule a bad decision. There has to be CLEAR evidence that the ruling on the field was wrong, otherwise they go with the ref's original call. The referal system could easily work really well in cricket if the players and umpires watched some of the examples from NFL and realised it's not about being 100% right about a call after the replay, it's about overturning bad calls.
The one thing I dislike about the NFL challenge is that sometimes it can go on for minutes and for me, if you can't decide inside a minute having seen what would be at least 6 or 7 replays from various angles then you go with the on pitch ruling. That said, i think a time limit on the decision making would be much easier to impose in footy because with the long delays in NFL, its normally because they have so many things to work out about where, when and how the game is restarted. With football it would mostly be for a yes/no decision.
I'm in favour personally, if the level of the game is such where decisons being made are important enough to affect clubs financially, they they have to make the investment in the technology.
As you say though, the key thing is that it is only there to over-rule a bad decision. There has to be CLEAR evidence that the ruling on the field was wrong, otherwise they go with the ref's original call. The referal system could easily work really well in cricket if the players and umpires watched some of the examples from NFL and realised it's not about being 100% right about a call after the replay, it's about overturning bad calls.
The one thing I dislike about the NFL challenge is that sometimes it can go on for minutes and for me, if you can't decide inside a minute having seen what would be at least 6 or 7 replays from various angles then you go with the on pitch ruling. That said, i think a time limit on the decision making would be much easier to impose in footy because with the long delays in NFL, its normally because they have so many things to work out about where, when and how the game is restarted. With football it would mostly be for a yes/no decision.
I'm in favour personally, if the level of the game is such where decisons being made are important enough to affect clubs financially, they they have to make the investment in the technology.
pasty
A different kind of pasty
100% agreement from me. Nulify the problem at source, and ways to try and counter it won't be needed.
There is far too much "gamesmanship" in football now. Right from childish little things like kicking the ball away, time wasting at free kicks/goal kicks, through to shirt tugging, diving and blatant cheating like Henry last night.
Also, when players are fined amounts like £5K or so for misdemeanours, make the fine actually mean something, like £100K or so. Fining a Premiership player £5K is a bit like fining me a cup a of coffee in the office.
The only thing i would have is goal line help.
How would TV replays work at Withdean? It would cost the clubs more money the get more camera's. It would work well in the top games because there is more than one or two cameras.
How would TV replays work at Withdean? It would cost the clubs more money the get more camera's. It would work well in the top games because there is more than one or two cameras.
I didn't see the game last night so I can't personally comment on the Anelka penalty, although I have seen the Henry handball.
Both of these incidents will have been replayed to death and yet, on checking various sites this morning I've seen references to France being denied a blatant penalty and Anelka should have been booked for a blatant dive.
I've also been chatting to one of my work colleagues who can't understand the fuss about the Henry incident as he thinks the goal should have stood as the handball was accidental. It certainly didn't look that way to me but it does the fallacy that video would solve everything. If an incident can be replayed many times from various angles and we still have opposing views, how on earth is it going to get rid of the controversy?
Both of these incidents will have been replayed to death and yet, on checking various sites this morning I've seen references to France being denied a blatant penalty and Anelka should have been booked for a blatant dive.
I've also been chatting to one of my work colleagues who can't understand the fuss about the Henry incident as he thinks the goal should have stood as the handball was accidental. It certainly didn't look that way to me but it does the fallacy that video would solve everything. If an incident can be replayed many times from various angles and we still have opposing views, how on earth is it going to get rid of the controversy?
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
- Thread starter
- #33
Well its only the top games that matter. Obviously.
As a general point regarding the two referrals per game system as per the NFL - the idea is not without its merits, and I've debated this at length with Gritt 23, who is something of an NFL afficienado and very much in favour of adopting it for soccerball. 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.
Norman Baker suck my lozenge
New member
Great topic.
I think each team captain should have 2 referals that the ref must look at on one monitor in the tunnel area,once referals used up tough shit.
I think each team captain should have 2 referals that the ref must look at on one monitor in the tunnel area,once referals used up tough shit.
60minute game clock - actual match time: 2-3 hours.
American football is stop start by it's nature and has natural points to look at a video replay.
I remember a bit of controversy a few years ago when one NFL manager criticised the replay system in a post match conference, saying that he wasn't going to toe the party line - the NFL have much tighter control on their game than FIFA, FA, UEFA etc. and aren't held to ransom by the big teams.
It was mentioned in coverage of this incident that these anti-replay outbursts seem to happen once a year (may have been hyperbole), and that most managers are not happy with the replay system, but in public spout the NFL's company line.
Video replay doesn't work as well as it appears. Often calls are missed because that type of ruling is not challengable. Often the commentators look at replays, say one thing only to have the ref go another way.
Another point to consider is that in American football, if you make a challenge and it is shown the ref was right, you lose a time out. Time outs are very important in controlling the game and clock management, and losing them are often costly, which makes coaches use their challenges sparingly.
How would you punish managers for frivolous challenges designed to interrupt the other team's momentum or to give your defence some respite from the onslaught? Yellow cards haven't eliminated anything. Red cards haven't eliminated anything. Because refs are worried about calling people cheats, these aren't used as often to deter diving as they should be, the same issue will stop refs card managers for challenging decisions (he might genuinely believe he was the victim of an error).
Another thing to point out is in NFL each replay slot is given up to 2 minutes, with officials often taken the full time to look at multiple replays, to discuss with people in the booth what different angles they want etc. One of the pros that is often spouted regarding replays is that "it will only take 10 seconds"
Technically speaking, handball has always required intent.
I didn't see the incident as I was at withdean last night. If it was intentional then the goal shouldn't have stood. If not, that colleague has a point.
[yt]l9YVNs-UwJY[/yt]