Video replay refs

[Acker79]

As far as I can see, the only people that have 'thought it through' are those who demand it for all matches.

Given the following discussion on this page, (and the bigger debate over videos in football) I think we can all see this isn't true. There are several issues brought up that there have been no answers for, mainly regarding when to stop the game, and how to not undermine the ref's authority in a match.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

WHY have challenges, WHY stop the game? Have a bloke watching the monitor, with radio contact to the ref, if its obvious he'll tell the Ref to change his decision (ie, maradona, Henry, Ngog the other week) and if its borderline he'll just leave it be. Simple.

No really, it is simple.

 

[Gritt23]

Would you HONESTLY like to see a goal go in, but then sit and wait, while the players stand around, until we get a green light and a buzzer go off or something to indicate the goal is ok ?

I'd rather that, than see us crash out of the play-offs to dive or a clear handball. It's a case of taking the rough with the smooth, one way round or the other.

Would you take the delay to reducing the cheating, or
Do you accept the cheating rather than having a delay.


It's most definitely the former in my mind, and quite clearly the latter in yours. For my money, I don't think we can rule ANYTHING out completely when it comes to cutting out the cheating that's becoming the cancer eating away at the (once) beautiful game.

 

[Timbo]

WHY have challenges, WHY stop the game? Have a bloke watching the monitor, with radio contact to the ref, if its obvious he'll tell the Ref to change his decision (ie, maradona, Henry, Ngog the other week) and if its borderline he'll just leave it be. Simple.

No really, it is simple.

If you're sitting in the stand happily watching the game and all of a sudden the ref blows his whistle and gives a free kick for something that happened a few minutes ago, but your not really sure what, would that really enhance your enjoyment of the game?

 

[Triggaaar]

Kings head vs Royal George will be lucky to have a qualified ref, let alone linesman and 4th official yet that game still goes ahead.

BensGrandad is right, it is one of the abiding conventions of all laws governing football that they are applied at all levels, from the World Cup to the parks of Mombasa. the number of cameras for top flight football to give the sort of coverage that we have for live games is apparently 20 cameras, times that by games right across europe. how about the Championship/other second teirs?

My point is why should any team be able to have the advantage of video technology just because they have the money. If you take Notts County as an example they would probably be the only team in Div 2 that could, on the face of it, afford it so why should they possibly benefit for matches at Meadow Lane.

Any rule changes, as would be required must be for the benefit of all clubs not just a chosen few.

Did either of you read Skint Gull's reply? Yes, the laws governing football are applied at all levels, but how many officials and how much technology is used to make decisions is not.

how many times do we see the pundits on MotD not agree on an penalty incident, or offside? they've had several hours to find the best angle available and many minutes to rewind, slow-mo the VT etc.

Indeed, not all decisions are clear cut, and to be honest, it's not such a big deal which way those decisions go - yes, those decisions will determine the outcome of a game, but if the decision is so close that we can't all agree, then no one can complain. It's blatant decisions (like when a ball is headed out for a goal kick, and given as a goal) that ruin the game, and they don't take ages of arguing to sort out.

 

[Triggaaar]

Say in the same incident, Henry didnt handball it but was fouled and the ref didnt give it and play carries on. They would then either have to stop the game to have a look or let it carry on until there was a natural break

If a method with challenges was introduced, the attacking team could simply challenge the decision as soon as the foul happened - if they win the challenge it's a penalty, if they lose, the opposing team gets the ball (that's their risk with the challenge). The game would stop for a minute, but then it would stop for a minute anyway if the penalty was correctly given in the first place.

There are several issues brought up that there have been no answers for, mainly regarding when to stop the game, and how to not undermine the ref's authority in a match.

There are answers for all of these points. Since there is more than one answer for each, there will be different opinions on which answer is best, but there is still an answer. My favourite method would be to stop the game when either team make a challenge (if it hasn't already been stopped) or when an official asks for assistance (give me an example situation and I'll say when I'd choose to stop play).

 

[Easy 10]

If a method with challenges was introduced, the attacking team could simply challenge the decision as soon as the foul happened - if they win the challenge it's a penalty, if they lose, the opposing team gets the ball (that's their risk with the challenge). The game would stop for a minute, but then it would stop for a minute anyway if the penalty was correctly given in the first place.

But in the instance you are quoting with Timbo (the Henry fiasco), its the DEFENDING team who would be challenging.

Or are we going to allow that as well, in the middle of an attack ?

 

[Triggaaar]

But in the instance you are quoting with Timbo (the Henry fiasco), its the DEFENDING team who would be challenging.

No, Timbo was saying 'what if Henry was fouled', so the attacking team could challenge.

 

[Timbo]

If a method with challenges was introduced, the attacking team could simply challenge the decision as soon as the foul happened - if they win the challenge it's a penalty, if they lose, the opposing team gets the ball (that's their risk with the challenge). The game would stop for a minute, but then it would stop for a minute anyway if the penalty was correctly given in the first place.

There are answers for all of these points. Since there is more than one answer for each, there will be different opinions on which answer is best, but there is still an answer. My favourite method would be to stop the game when either team make a challenge (if it hasn't already been stopped) or when an official asks for assistance (give me an example situation and I'll say when I'd choose to stop play).

You cant say as soon as the foul happens. There has to be a time limit. If you said 10 seconds that would give teams an opportunity to stop the game if a breaks on at the other end.

 

[Easy 10]

No, Timbo was saying 'what if Henry was fouled', so the attacking team could challenge.

Doesn't answer the question though.
Are we going to allow defending teams to challenge if another Henry-type incident ocurred ? What if there's some kind of goalmouth scramble going on - could the defending team suddenly call a challenge and get the game stopped before the ball ends up in their net ?

 

[Triggaaar]

the DEFENDING team who would be challenging.

Or are we going to allow that as well, in the middle of an attack ?

If a defending team challenges during an attack, and it's not clear cut, play can continue - if a goal is scored, or free kick etc is subsequently given to the attacking team, the defending teams challenge is looked at - if the defending team win the challenge, it's their ball, if not, we go with whatever followed. If the attacking team didn't gain an advantage, may as well continue and forget the defending teams challenge.

 

[Triggaaar]

Are we going to allow defending teams to challenge if another Henry-type incident ocurred ? What if there's some kind of goalmouth scramble going on - could the defending team suddenly call a challenge and get the game stopped before the ball ends up in their net ?

As I've posted, the answer is no, they cannot simply stop the ball ending up in the net by challenging.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Forget challenges, crap idea. Crap in cricket as well, just about acceptable in tennis.

Ref should decide, forget the team challenging. Just have someone watching a TV monitor and he can tell the ref when the argie dives or the frenchman handballs

 

[Easy 10]

If a defending team challenges during an attack, and it's not clear cut, play can continue - if a goal is scored, or free kick etc is subsequently given to the attacking team, the defending teams challenge is looked at - if the defending team win the challenge, it's their ball, if not, we go with whatever followed. If the attacking team didn't gain an advantage, may as well continue and forget the defending teams challenge.

And therein lies the problem. Who decides if its clear cut ? One persons clear cut is another persons marginal decision.

I'm telling you, this is an unworkable MINEFIELD that would cause a LOT more problems than it would solve.

 

[Triggaaar]

Forget challenges, crap idea. Crap in cricket as well, just about acceptable in tennis.

Ref should decide, forget the team challenging. Just have someone watching a TV monitor and he can tell the ref when the argie dives or the frenchman handballs

Although I like the idea of challenges, I'd still be happy with your suggestion, it could still improve the game IMO. But why do you think challenges is crap? What's not to like? (forget cricket, there are other sports where it's more appropriate)

 

[Triggaaar]

And therein lies the problem. Who decides if its clear cut ? One persons clear cut is another persons marginal decision.

I'm telling you, this is an unworkable MINEFIELD that would cause a LOT more problems than it would solve.

I don't agree. The officials decide if it's clear cut. Some decisions would still be wrong, I don't doubt that, but there would be a massive improvement. If it was an unworkable minefield it wouldn't work in sports like tennis, rugby and american football, but it does work.

 

[Acker79]

There are answers for all of these points.

Which, as your ensuing conversation with Easy 10 shows, opens up more questions when thought is put into its application.

 

[sten_super]

I don't agree. The officials decide if it's clear cut. Some decisions would still be wrong, I don't doubt that, but there would be a massive improvement. If it was an unworkable minefield it wouldn't work in sports like tennis, rugby and american football, but it does work.

Are you joking? Tennis and American football are as stop-start as any sport, anywhere, ever, which is why it works. It is easy to challenge something at the end of the 'play'. In rugby the video ref is ONLY used to decide whether a try has been scored, and either way the ball has gone dead. In football the ball most likely would not be dead when the challenge has to be reviewed, so you have Easy's examples of using challenges tactically to stop counter attacks, or you have to wait for the ball to go dead, in which case you could be five minutes further into the game and at potentially a major decision (goal, sending off, etc.).

 

[Triggaaar]

Which, as your ensuing conversation with Easy 10 shows, opens up more questions when thought is put into its application.

Yes it opens up questions, but they can be resolved.

Are you joking?

No. Are you?

so you have Easy's examples of using challenges tactically to stop counter attacks

If each team only gets one unsuccessful challenge per helf, they're not going to use it at the start of a counter attack. If a counter attack already looks dangerous, the ref can play on and only look at the challenge if the attacking team score/get a corner etc.

 

[Easy 10]

The more rules you have to bring in to accomodate challenges, the more complicated it all becomes and the more potential for controversy will ensue. And you can guarantee if a team has still got a challenge or two tucked up its sleeve going into the latter stages of a game, it will be used errantly or tactically just to break the game up (as you already get with pointless substitutions just to use up time and "kill" a game). Imagine challenges AND late subs, the last 5 minutes would be a tortuous process if one team is clinging on.

Nothings ever going to be perfect of course, but when it comes to challenges/video replays, I firmly believe the cons end up FAR outweighing the pros.