dougdeep
New member
Spot on, and the same goes for goal line technology.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Video referees anyone?
- Thread starter bathseagull
- Start date
Spot on, and the same goes for goal line technology.
Shinbreath
Member
I've never really understood what the 4th official actually does apart from get shouted at by managers and show the 'time added on' board.
I guess he may be an extra pair of eyes but what if he was on the pitch too as an 'on pitch assistant'. Perhaps always at a radius of about 20 or 30 yards from the main ref. It could drastically reduce the amount of poor decisions made.
Video technology is a no no for me !!!
I guess he may be an extra pair of eyes but what if he was on the pitch too as an 'on pitch assistant'. Perhaps always at a radius of about 20 or 30 yards from the main ref. It could drastically reduce the amount of poor decisions made.
Video technology is a no no for me !!!
Keeping The Dream Alive.
Naming Rights
"Football is not about money"
:thud:
:thud:
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,639
Imagine how dull life would be on here if we never had to moan about referees again?
No videos for me thanks. Managers who complain that "livelihoods are at risk" because of refereeing decisions all too conveniently overlook the numerous mistakes that their own players make, every single game.
They have 90 minutes to score more goals than the opposition, and fail to do it, therefore the officials must be responsible. If only we could all sleeve any semblance of personal responsibility in our own jobs eh?
No videos for me thanks. Managers who complain that "livelihoods are at risk" because of refereeing decisions all too conveniently overlook the numerous mistakes that their own players make, every single game.
They have 90 minutes to score more goals than the opposition, and fail to do it, therefore the officials must be responsible. If only we could all sleeve any semblance of personal responsibility in our own jobs eh?
Slough Seagull
Bye Bye Slough
- Nov 23, 2006
- 743
agree 100%!
bathseagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #26
But Tennis and Football are such COMPLETELY different sports.....
bathseagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #27
And anyway, letting a video referee watch a recording of an incident (i.e. a penalty appeal) is exactly the same, it's just someone else making the decision. Say the manager doesn't agree with the on-pitch referee and asks for it to be referred, the video referee backs the decision, the manager will just argue with him as well... It could go on forever.
IF videos come in, they should only be used to determine matters of FACT.
IF videos come in, they should only be used to determine matters of FACT.
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,234
There's enough refs that make games too stop start now as it is with their petty decisions. How much worse will it get if they have video technology to play with too ?
Sorry, I like a flowing game and believe the big decisions even out over a season anyway. Video technology is great for the relaxed pace of cricket, but bring it in for football and I may as well start watching that super bowl shite next.
Sorry, I like a flowing game and believe the big decisions even out over a season anyway. Video technology is great for the relaxed pace of cricket, but bring it in for football and I may as well start watching that super bowl shite next.
I share many of the issues raised:
-When do you check the video if the decision on the pitch is no offense took place/the ball didn't cross the line, play on? What if the next break in play is actually a goal for the other team?
-If teams get to challenge decisions, how do we avoid the abuse of the challenge system?
-undermining authority, and not actually solving the issue of denial and passing the buck.
-not a guarantee of getting the correct decision.
-we complain about refs blowing for every little incident because it makes the game stop start, won't we be increasing that?
-The contentious decisions are what make the game interesting and give us all things to talk about
I'd also like to add:
-cost, who pays? Would brighton have to pay the same sort of money as chelsea? are richer teams allowed to have more cameras?
-tennis, NFL, and cricket have natural stopping points, making it amenable to video replays, we don't have that in football.
-it opens the flood gates. We start with only using videos if it goes over the line, but then, a wrong penalty decision is just as costly, then if we allow it for penalties, why not free kicks just outside the area? lots of goals come from them..., a wrong offside decision can cost a 1-on-1 which is like a penalty... suddenly every decision made is contested by video camera.
-game time - a quick game of cricket takes one day, nfl games have a clock time of 60mins and actually take 2.5 hours, tennis has no set game time, and can take several hours
-lazy refereeing: in nfl some situations can b ruled one of two ways, one of which is challengeable. the other is not. This leads to some stubborn refs picking the decision that is unchallengeable, and leads to others choosing the challengeable decision so they can see the video replay, the problem is that the video replay is not always conclusive.
-A ref makes maybe one or two mistake in a game, players make many more than that (passing to the wrong player, trying to make the wrong pass, shooting instead of passing, passing instead of shooting, taking it inside instead of outside, standing off instead of making the challenge, diving in instead of standing off, punching instead of catching, etc). Sometimes ref errors can spur on the team on the wrong end of it, the sense of injustice, the drive to overcome the biased ref, etc.
-When do you check the video if the decision on the pitch is no offense took place/the ball didn't cross the line, play on? What if the next break in play is actually a goal for the other team?
-If teams get to challenge decisions, how do we avoid the abuse of the challenge system?
-undermining authority, and not actually solving the issue of denial and passing the buck.
-not a guarantee of getting the correct decision.
-we complain about refs blowing for every little incident because it makes the game stop start, won't we be increasing that?
-The contentious decisions are what make the game interesting and give us all things to talk about
I'd also like to add:
-cost, who pays? Would brighton have to pay the same sort of money as chelsea? are richer teams allowed to have more cameras?
-tennis, NFL, and cricket have natural stopping points, making it amenable to video replays, we don't have that in football.
-it opens the flood gates. We start with only using videos if it goes over the line, but then, a wrong penalty decision is just as costly, then if we allow it for penalties, why not free kicks just outside the area? lots of goals come from them..., a wrong offside decision can cost a 1-on-1 which is like a penalty... suddenly every decision made is contested by video camera.
-game time - a quick game of cricket takes one day, nfl games have a clock time of 60mins and actually take 2.5 hours, tennis has no set game time, and can take several hours
-lazy refereeing: in nfl some situations can b ruled one of two ways, one of which is challengeable. the other is not. This leads to some stubborn refs picking the decision that is unchallengeable, and leads to others choosing the challengeable decision so they can see the video replay, the problem is that the video replay is not always conclusive.
-A ref makes maybe one or two mistake in a game, players make many more than that (passing to the wrong player, trying to make the wrong pass, shooting instead of passing, passing instead of shooting, taking it inside instead of outside, standing off instead of making the challenge, diving in instead of standing off, punching instead of catching, etc). Sometimes ref errors can spur on the team on the wrong end of it, the sense of injustice, the drive to overcome the biased ref, etc.
Last edited:
seagullkev
Member
personally i can't understand why anyone would want to introduce technology into football it's fine as it is. the only people i know who want things changed are the ones who sit at home and watch on the tele and watch the endless replays and analysis of every decision. fans who go to games don't want to see any changes.
otk
~(.)(.)~
How long did it take to get that TD decision in the Superbowl just now?
5 minutes FFS!!!
5 minutes FFS!!!
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
it's easy to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about something that hasn't been used before. however, video technology for refereeing decisions has potential benefits that would increase the accuracy of decision-making - there must be a way of using it without losing the flow of a game. of course there will be some teething problems, but I think it would be worth testing it out in some high profile friendlies and seeing what happens and then refining the system.
a lot of very contentious decision cause long breaks in play anyway and a quick action replay to see whether the ball crossed the line or a player is onside is only going to take a few seconds anyway.
a lot of very contentious decision cause long breaks in play anyway and a quick action replay to see whether the ball crossed the line or a player is onside is only going to take a few seconds anyway.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,877
Personally, I go with the 'The game, as played on Hackney Marshes, with a ref and two linesmen, should be the same game as played at Anfield etc.' argument
It's funny how Alan Green et al bang on about technology, when their employers i.e. The BBC, have a vested interest in supplying such equipment
Bring in technology and the game would be slowed down too much. Mistakes even out over the season, and also, what would we have to talk about on here or in the pub?
Agree, but can't see how the BBC would have a vested interest at all and wouldn't be in the business of supplying it at all. Neither would Sky I would imagine.
A specialist company would provide the service, which would have to be the same across every ground.
They wouldn't let the broadcasting companies anywhere near it, expect to charge them by the second to integrate the footage into their live coverage,