Video replay refs

[Triggaaar]

As things stand, regarding goals (not bookings) the 2 things that happen incorrectly are:
1) An attacking team is given a goal/penalty/attacking free kick when they shouldn't have been
2) A defending team is given a decision that stops the attacking team having the chance to score

Video would allow the first problem to be greatly reduced, and even help with the second problem, because where a ref is caught in 2 minds, he can allow attacks to continue knowing that if the attacking team does gain an advantage, he can always review his decision.

 

[Acker79]

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

Not really, they can't. You seem to be coming up with answers to these question whichc make it seem like a) you didn't consider the question before, and b) you haven't thought the answers through.

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.

Define "looks dangerous". Would Craig Davies clear on goal be dangerous given all his misses? Would Ronaldo covered by two men be dangerous? Would Adam Virgo covered by two men be dangerous?

This would introduce more interpretation to the laws of the game, and the biggest problem with the laws are those that are about the interpretation of the official.

 

[The Wizard]

Leave football as it has been for over a century, the controversy is part of the game and it wouldn't be the same without it.

If it comes in, it WILL destroy the game for me.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

It could sound complicated in a quick discusion over the net, but it's really not that complicated.

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.

Yes I agree, it definitely would be used tactically as you say. But if each team only has one failed challenge per half, that doesn't allow them much opportunity to use it in such a way. And if it's obvious, there's nothing to stop the video ref making a decision really quickly so the game can continue.

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.

Indeed, we just have to agree to disagree. Surelyt worth a trial at some point though - use the american soccer league, they already understand how these things work, would be a great place to test it.

 

[NS Herald]

Leave football as it has been for over a century, the controversy is part of the game and it wouldn't be the same without it.

If it comes in, it WILL destroy the game for me.

In some ways it is destroying itself at the moment and should encompass techology to restore its' credibility.

I for one would like to think of the benefits that would be brought to the game and how it can be applied for the benefit of all.

 

[Acker79]

because where a ref is caught in 2 minds, he can allow attacks to continue knowing that if the attacking team does gain an advantage, he can always review his decision.

Except a good attacking team may continue attacking, probing the opposition defence in their half for 5 or 10 minutes without losing possession or the ball going out. It's 0-0, you let the attack continue for 7 minutes before the ball goes out of play. Review the tape (2 minutes to be sure, like in NFL) and realise should have been a free kick up the other end.

Do we ignore those 7 minutes or tack them on the end and have a "90 game" that with 4min injury time, 2 minute review time, and 7 minutes runs over 100mins?

 

[The Wizard]

In some ways it is destroying itself at the moment and should encompass techology to restore its' credibility.

I for one would like to think of the benefits that would be brought to the game and how it can be applied for the benefit of all.

How is it destroying itself? football has been the same for hundreds of years and the game is still going strong (after all the controversies Maradona 86 ect), human error is part of the game.

 

[Rookie]

So say worst case scenario video refs are introduced where does it start and where does it stop. Presume we are talking premiership, champions league and world cup etc. What about champions league qualifiers when you have poor teams or what ever the UEFA cup is called now where teams don't have as much money to throw around. What about championship games? What happens if we get there before Falmer? How about other top flight leagues less well off than the premiership? FA cup? Lots and lots of holes and that doesn't even start with when to make the call. Why do some people want to put the game we all love in the hands of a television director and crew and hoping that they pick the correct camera angle?

 

[Gritt23]

Except a good attacking team may continue attacking, probing the opposition defence in their half for 5 or 10 minutes without losing possession or the ball going out.

When EXACTLY was the last time you saw that happen? C'mon let's keep the discussion in the realms of the real World.

 

[Brovion]

...

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

How on EARTH did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Easy 10]

When EXACTLY was the last time you saw that happen? C'mon let's keep the discussion in the realms of the real World.

Leeds on Saturday
(well it FELT like at at times)

 

[Gritt23]

football has been the same for hundreds of years

You're joking right?

If not dig out a game from the 70s or even the 80s and see if you honestly believe the game hasn't changed. There wasn't any point diving like they do today because you had to be whacked up in the air for it to be a foul anyway. Drogba seemingly getting caught in the face everytime someone goes near him just would have given up doing it because it wouldn't have got him anywhere. Players today get cards for dangerous play even when they don't make contact, because they played with a dangerous intention ..... LOL, Chopper Harris would have been booked when they read the team sheet out if that was the case back then.

Hasn't changed for hundreds of years?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I agree its hard to decide how far back to go in play, i.e. a handball in the build-up to a goal but a good 20 passes before the goal. and so on. But those controversies will always persist, but if the blatant dive, the blatant handball, the baltant faker gets stopped it can only be better for the game.

Some say it will only apply to the biggest games, but perhaps the biggest games are where the biggest miscarriages of justice are done. Ireland are (potentially) missing out on going to the world cup and all the inherent benefits that brings to the players and the country, which can be considered more important in the great scheme of things than Coventry v Barnsley in the championship.

 

[beorhthelm]

Just have someone watching a TV monitor and he can tell the ref when the argie dives or the frenchman handballs

it really isnt that simple. for a start, watching one monitor is going to be near pointless, it needs to be half a dozen, which will determined by a producer, or a whole bank of monitors for every available camera. Too much emphasis is on one incident (Henry) where it "obvious", not having seen live was it before the replays? how many decisions look one way when seen from camara angle x but differently from another? ho many are obviously wrong even in plain sight of the ref?

this is rather important point, if we are to engage in all this technology, we still have things missed. in a Europa game Fulham had a play sent off for nothing challenge right in front of the goal line assistant, and a different player was almost sent off to start with.

is your man watching the monitor is going to look at the incident, rewind, check, look at another angle... then call the ref? by which time we could have had a goal or such. If not, they are just as likly to miss somthing as the ref + two linesman, so lets not bother , eh?

 

[Pavilionaire]

The amount of money in and around the game, the globalisation of broadcasts and proliferation in betting on football have changed everything in this regard.

It is now more important than ever to improve the accuracy of officiating in the sport, so the use of technology MUST be embraced.

The worry is that FIFA rush something through and cock it up. Trialling stuff in the World Cup is the WORST thing that could happen. FIFA need to identify a 'hit-list' of grey areas, then have a whole season trialling new officiating powers.

I think they should approach the top flight of a country, say the country of FIFA's HQ and the Swiss Division 1 and run a trial for a whole season. That way they'd find out what works and what doesn't, every side in that division would be in the same boat so it would be fair. FIFA officials would be on hand to experience the changes.

Some things only happen once or twice a season, hence the need for a long trial run. I think stuff like penalties, red cards, coaches challenges, disallowed goals, time-keeping, goal celebrations should all be on the agenda.

The more I see that Henry handball in super slo-mo the worse it gets...

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

it really isnt that simple. for a start, watching one monitor is going to be near pointless, it needs to be half a dozen, which will determined by a producer, or a whole bank of monitors for every available camera. Too much emphasis is on one incident (Henry) where it "obvious", not having seen live was it before the replays? how many decisions look one way when seen from camara angle x but differently from another? ho many are obviously wrong even in plain sight of the ref?

this is rather important point, if we are to engage in all this technology, we still have things missed. in a Europa game Fulham had a play sent off for nothing challenge right in front of the goal line assistant, and a different player was almost sent off to start with.

is your man watching the monitor is going to look at the incident, rewind, check, look at another angle... then call the ref? by which time we could have had a goal or such. If not, they are just as likly to miss somthing as the ref + two linesman, so lets not bother , eh?

I'll beg to differ, its simple. We saw Henry's handball clear as day on the replays before Ireland had kicked-off. If there is any real doubt which takes a zillion replays to sort out, forget it, ref's decision stands. Its these stinkers we'll solve.

I'm not sure about your Fulham example, was it missed by the TV cameras? Then so be it. If it wasn't, then sounds like the replays would have helped and resolved the problem.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I'll agree with one thing though. It should be simple, but I bet you the fuckers who pass for refs these days will mess it up. Just like cricket. Simple idea, have a replay and sort out the blatant mistakes. Instead we get a daft challenge system, hawkeye without using all of hawkeye, 3rd umpires overruling difficult 50-50 decisions, getting it blatantly wrong themselves. All we wanted was something that said - did he snick the ball or not? did it pitch outside leg or not? Not 3rd umpires deciding that height on an lbw wasn't 100% sure and giving the benefit of slight doubt to the batsman.

Sorry, rant over. back to the football.

 

[beorhthelm]

... If there is any real doubt which takes a zillion replays to sort out, forget it, ref's decision stands.

thats such a massive 'if' though. where do you stop once the genie is out?

if he'd been the other side of the pitch/blocked from main TV view by a player, would it have been so clear cut?

 

[Jim D]

I think everyone id getting far too carried away with a series of nightmare scenarios where play is stopped while someone looks at a screen to see if there was a foul 10 minutes before. That is NOT what I would use TV monitoring for.

In the same way as they do for Rugby (both codes) the video ref would only be used when the ref called for him - which would only be when there was doubt over the validity of a goal or where there were claims that a goal had been scored but not given.

In these circumstances play would already have been stopped (either for a goal or a kick) and it wouldn't take long for the decision to be made. In the case of the Henry handball goal they hadn't even kicked-off when TV showed the handball. Even in the case of the ball crossing the line but being cleared and play continuing (as in the Spurs 'goal' v Man U) it would only be seconds before the ref was informed and blew for the goal.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I think everyone id getting far too carried away with a series of nightmare scenarios where play is stopped while someone looks at a screen to see if there was a foul 10 minutes before. That is NOT what I would use TV monitoring for.

In the same way as they do for Rugby (both codes) the video ref would only be used when the ref called for him - which would only be when there was doubt over the validity of a goal or where there were claims that a goal had been scored but not given.

In these circumstances play would already have been stopped (either for a goal or a kick) and it wouldn't take long for the decision to be made. In the case of the Henry handball goal they hadn't even kicked-off when TV showed the handball. Even in the case of the ball crossing the line but being cleared and play continuing (as in the Spurs 'goal' v Man U) it would only be seconds before the ref was informed and blew for the goal.

and I also agree with that. If the ref can call for a replay, he does so AFTER goal is scored / penalty awarded / man sent off.

Unfortunately it doesn't work if a penalty is incorrectly NOT given. So I still favour having an independent official on the side, if it was an obvious pen then he radio's down, tells the ref, who awards it.