Video referees anyone?

[bathseagull]

It seems this hasn't been discussed on here for a few years, so...

What do you reckon?

My view for what it's worth is that video replays could only be used for factual stuff such as ball crossing the line, offside decisions, handball etc. Challenges like the Lampard one today should be left to the referee on the pitch to decide on. He is out there, in the mix of the game and should make the decision according to his interpretation. If he gets it wrong (as I think he did today) then so be it, we recruit these people to run the game so we should let them run it and accept their decisions.

By the way, John Terry, what a tosser.

 

[otk]

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?

 

[Foolg]

Thing is I dont understand how it would work, for example if you have a ball put through and the linesman puts his flag up and all the defenders stop while the striker goes through to score, but then the ref goes to a replay what does he do if he concludes it was ONside. He surely cannot give a goal as all defenders stopped playing understandably. There are hundreds more examples i can think of like this! The other thing is that i feel it could ruin football, i went to my first professional rugby game during the world cup, and the amount of stop-start made it really boring. I think stopping the game for periods of time every time a decision is in doubt and making all players and supporters wait around could turn the game very boring!

 

[blue and white army]

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 it will just ruin the game, the only reason cricket and tennis have video technology is to make the sport more interesting to watch nothing needs tampering with football apart from educating the referees more sufficiently

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Works in tennis perfectly well. Maybe allow each team up to three 'Hawkeye' challenges to decisions per half. Can only be a good thing IMHO

 

[blue and white army]

Works in tennis perfectly well. Maybe allow each team up to three 'Hawkeye' challenges to decisions per half. Can only be a good thing IMHO

I don't see how anyone can see it as beneficial to the game

 

[Timbo]

Works in tennis perfectly well. Maybe allow each team up to three 'Hawkeye' challenges to decisions per half. Can only be a good thing IMHO

When would you stop the game?

 

[blue and white army]

When would you stop the game?

Use your three challenges in stoppage time to break up the play

 

[Timbo]

Use your three challenges in stoppage time to break up the play

Another good point, open to abuse.

I can just see someone not getting a decision and the ball then stays in open play for say 8 minutes. Then theres a challenge to a decision and the team challenging is proved right and for instance a goal is given. What happens to the 8 minutes?

The whole game is disappearing in a frenzy to have perfect referees when the players are still shit! Do we need a video referee to stop Skrtel from slicing the ball into the top row of the stand this afternoon when standing on his own on the egde of his own 18 yeard box?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

When would you stop the game?

Red cards. Yellow cards. Free-kicks. Offsides. When would you NOT stop the game?

 

[Timbo]

Red cards. Yellow cards. Free-kicks. Offsides. When would you NOT stop the game?

I mean to challenge a decision?

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

I think it should be brought in, especially at the top level where they have the facility.

Ref's have to retire quite early, due to the physical demands, but why can't an experinced ref watch the screens and be miked up to advise the ref? the man in the middle would always have the last word but they can't see everything and having an 'ex' ref, who knows the laws, must surely help.

As for stoppages, well most contennsious decisions have a min or 2 of argueing anyway.

(PS, it's the cold weather and the use of long words that is messing up my spelling!)

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I mean to challenge a decision?

That's what I meant too. Allow three challenges to official decisions, either three per half or three per match. Wouldn't add that much to the length of the game and would defuse much of the controversy in any given game.

 

[Timbo]

I think it should be brought in, especially at the top level where they have the facility.

Ref's have to retire quite early, due to the physical demands, but why can't an experinced ref watch the screens and be miked up to advise the ref? the man in the middle would always have the last word but they can't see everything and having an 'ex' ref, who knows the laws, must surely help.

As for stoppages, well most contennsious decisions have a min or 2 of argueing anyway.

(PS, it's the cold weather and the use of long words that is messing up my spelling!)

But what if the ref hasn't stopped the game? The 'upstairs ref' takes a minute or 2 to watch a couple of replays, spots something wrong and the game stops. Meanwhile 40,000 people stand around not knowing what the f*** is going on!

 

[Timbo]

That's what I meant too. Allow three challenges to official decisions, either three per half or three per match. Wouldn't add that much to the length of the game and would defuse much of the controversy in any given game.

So what if the ref hasn't stopped the game and the challenging side think he should? Then when can they stop it? It comes down to the fact it is a game of human challenge. Players, managers and referees all doing their best. If a player is shit for any period of time he's dropped and the same applies to refs. These refs don't end up in the premiership by accident!

 

[otk]

I have my doubts about the accuracy of video evidence. In a France '98 match involving Holland, a penalty was awarded to the Dutch and replays from seven TV cameras 'showed' it to be an erroneous decision, whereas a video camera being used behind the goal filming a documentary showed it to be a stonewall penalty. How many cameras would suffice to give truely accurate views of contentious decisions?

 

[Rookie]

No.
Football is the easiest game in the world to play. Two goals a ball and some people to smack it round a field, car park, road etc. is all you need. Why change that to bring in a bit of technology? It is not about money and all that, it is about enjoyment for players and fans and we have coped perfectly well for years and years without

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It is not about money and all that

Um, I think you'll find it is.

 

[Rookie]

Um, I think you'll find it is.

but no its not. football should be open to all and if you make the game at the top different from the game the vast majority play in the parks then you are changing the game and then end will be nigh

 

[ali jenkins]

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?

I 100% agree with this statement