Video replay refs

[Jim D]

Holy hell. You are setting up a whole new catalogue of potential disputes with that. Now we're looking at how far back the video ref is allowed to rewind the tape, depending on if/when its cleared ?! And lino's giving up on offsides to let the video ref decide instead....sheeesh, I wouldn't fancy picking over the bones of that AFTER a match, let alone DURING one !

I don't think so. If we're only interested in whether or not a goal was correctly scored then we're only interested in the action leading up to it. This has to be from the time that the scoring side last received the ball, and what they did with it. The defensive clearance would be the delimiter.

As for the offsides I would think that would be a natural by-product of video refs (the alternative would be for the players flagged as offside to try to score and hope the ref would refer the decision). But again, I cannot see that as a bad thing. Every week we see offside decisions incorrectly given - in both directions. I do think it's time that these sort of marginal and often controvertial decisions are taken away from the linos. And remember, they would only be reviewed if a goal was scored and the ref thought there was doubt.

 

[Easy 10]

I don't think so. If we're only interested in whether or not a goal was correctly scored then we're only interested in the action leading up to it. This has to be from the time that the scoring side last received the ball, and what they did with it. The defensive clearance would be the delimiter.

As for the offsides I would think that would be a natural by-product of video refs (the alternative would be for the players flagged as offside to try to score and hope the ref would refer the decision). But again, I cannot see that as a bad thing. Every week we see offside decisions incorrectly given - in both directions. I do think it's time that these sort of marginal and often controvertial decisions are taken away from the linos. And remember, they would only be reviewed if a goal was scored and the ref thought there was doubt.

Thats one of the most worrying aspects though isn't it.
Once you start down the road of reviewing video evidence for certain incidents, you run the risk of extending its use further and further, until we basically end up with Andy Gray reffing the whole game from the studio.

At the moment its: "The technology is there, why arn't we using it ?"
Then it'll be: "We're already using video replays for this, so why not extend it now to incorporate that ?"

You're talking about fundamentally altering the game of football beyond all recognition. Yes, there are problems that need addressing, but there are OTHER ways of tackling them, without resorting to video during the game. It really will cause more aggro than it resolves.

 

[Jim D]

Thats one of the most worrying aspects though isn't it.
Once you start down the road of reviewing video evidence for certain incidents, you run the risk of extending its use further and further, until we basically end up with Andy Gray reffing the whole game from the studio.

At the moment its: "The technology is there, why arn't we using it ?"
Then it'll be: "We're already using video replays for this, so why not extend it now to incorporate that ?"

You're talking about fundamentally altering the game of football beyond all recognition. Yes, there are problems that need addressing, but there are OTHER ways of tackling them, without resorting to video during the game. It really will cause more aggro than it resolves.

video refs have been in use in both rugby codes for a number of years and there hasn't been any clamour to extend their use. There are clear rules regarding when and how a vr will be called and the players aren't involved in any disputes or challenges. Of course there are times when even the vr can't be sure (ball under 10 or 15 players - was it a try or was it held up) but they make many more good decisions than bad ones, and often ones that the ref would not have spotted.

 

[Easy 10]

I'm not interested in it working in other sports. Every sport is totally unique in its own way. Just because they use video replays in other sports, it doesn't automatically follow that football can just as easily incorporate it.

Anyhoo, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this sir. Its always an interesting debate though. I have friends who's opinion falls on both sides of the fence as well on this issue, and we never end up agreeing on this either. Good pub chat though innit.

 

[jimhigham]

Who will pay for sky to record every single match in the football and premiership league?

Any rules changes must be done for the benefit of all levels of football so what about Worthing vs Horsham or Kings Head vs Royal George on a Sunday morning. Or are they going to make a special rule just for Premiership, Champions League, and Internationals oh I forgot what about Man U vs Chelsea in the FA cup, so lets include the FA Cup, but that starts in August at a low level of entry.

It is not just a simple case of lets have and use the technology that is available.

Er...why? Video technology is widely used in rugby and cricket and computer based evidence in tennis. Clearly the equipment used in these sports is not available at "grass roots" level but the administrators are progressive enough to utilise the new technology. I have always found FIFA's position on this to be fairly laudable but not really defensible.

As for the old chestnut that it would disrupt the flow of a game, this would only really apply if every refereeing decision was referred to a video assistant. I am sure that it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to draft up a list of "crucial" incidents where a referral was necessary (e.g. all goals to be double checked for offisde, all awarded penalties to be double checked to verify if the infringement occured).

Let's face it. Video evidence might only be applied to one or two Brighton matches a season whereas Chelsea's would be scrutinised every week. Would we really be that offended? I certainly wouldn't.

Another thing that people seem to forget is that this is a wonderful opportunity to shut the likes of Ferguson and Benitez up. The existence of doubt gives them a grey area in which to sow their nasty little allegations. Once a decision is cut and dried they'll have to live with it, good or bad.

Bring it on.

 

[Easy 10]

I am sure that it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to draft up a list of "crucial" incidents where a referral was necessary (e.g. all goals to be double checked for offisde, all awarded penalties to be double checked to verify if the infringement occured).

You make it sound sooo straightforward, as though every decision reviewed on video is as easy and obvious to call as the Henry handball.
The reality is wholly different. A decision on a penalty, and even on offside these days, is still down to an INTERPRETATION of the incident. Its not always blatant, its not always black and white. And where there's room for doubt, room for opinion on how much contact there was, or whether someone was interfering with play, you're opening up a whole new controversial issue.

You think the likes of Fergie will always agree with the calls a guy makes from a video replay ? You're just swapping one massive row for another.

 

[jimhigham]

You make it sound sooo straightforward, as though every decision reviewed on video is as easy and obvious to call as the Henry handball.
The reality is wholly different. A decision on a penalty, and even on offside these days, is still down to an INTERPRETATION of the incident. Its not always blatant, its not always black and white. And where there's room for doubt, room for opinion on how much contact there was, or whether someone was interfering with play, you're opening up a whole new controversial issue.

You think the likes of Fergie will always agree with the calls a guy makes from a video replay ? You're just swapping one massive row for another.

A fair point well made. However, what I don't understand is what has the game got to lose by trying? Video evidence will provide added assistance. I suspect that video evidence would lead to correct decisions in the majority of cases (i.e. the readily identifiable France goal). Granted it may not be a large majority but surely that remains superior to maintaining the status quo? If there is doubt then the presumption must be that the referees decision remains correct.

 

[Jim D]

I'm not interested in it working in other sports. Every sport is totally unique in its own way. Just because they use video replays in other sports, it doesn't automatically follow that football can just as easily incorporate it.

Anyhoo, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this sir. Its always an interesting debate though. I have friends who's opinion falls on both sides of the fence as well on this issue, and we never end up agreeing on this either. Good pub chat though innit.

Exactly, but I never touched a drop all afternoon! Maybe tomorrow we could do capital punishment or Afghanistan.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Might be alright for the armchair fans who can sit there looking at all the TV replays that the officials are looking at. Might add to THEIR experience I suppose.
But if I'm at a match, I don't want to sit there on tenterhooks, waiting for a TV decision to be made that I won't even see meself unless its on the tellybox when I get home. That'd be proper rubbish.

Thats when you send cheerleaders on, play loud music and the team can have a "huddle". Don't you know anything?

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

Grow up

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?

If a team is making a challenge in order to stop the opposing team having a counter attack, then there must have been a tackle or something at some point. If the decision challenge comes in straight after the tackle, it's unlikely the attacking team is close to a goal scoring opportunity if they are about to counter attack, so maybe the defending team will get away with slowing the game down in this instant, but they can only do that at the end of a half, and only if they actually have a challenge left, so it's unlikely to have much of a negative effect. And they can only do it once.

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.

No, you don't wait for 7 minutes. You'd probably not need to wait more than 30 seconds at a push, at a point where the attacking team is still applying pressure, but not directly threatening the opponents goal (ie, the defenders will be back, attacking team with the ball back from the area). If the defending teams challenge is successful then it was right to break up the attack. If it isn't successful, the attacking team gets the ball, and although they will have lost a tiny bit of momentum, that won't happen again in that half because the other team will be out of challenges (you could even make it one team challenge (as opposed to ref instigated challenge) per game instead of per half, to reduce miss use.

 

[GT49er]

No change in the rules needed - butIF the Sky cameras (or ESPN or the BBC or Channel 5) are there, then the fourth official should be watching them, not to see if the managers are encroaching the area outside where they should be.
The referee's decision would still be final, but the fourth official would be able to talk to him by a radio link - as in "Did you see Henry handle the ball? It was crystal clear on the TV - over to you".
No apppeals as trialled in cricket, or anything like that, but just another pair of (qualified) eyes to help the referee. Similarly, when one side is frantically claiming a handball, or foul, or something, the ref could ask the fourth official, "Did you see anything on the monitors that I might have missed?"
Can't see a problem with that.

 

[Acker79]

The players wouldn't be allowed to appeal - only the ref would be allowed to ask the video ref. He would only do this if, in his opinion, there was doubt over the validity of the goal (or vice-versa). Obviously, in the case where the whole team was disputing (as in the France goal) he would probably want to consult even if he thought it was a valid goal.

But it won't matter if players aren't officially allowed to appeal, they will surround the ref after every goal. Players don't just challenge the ref when they are the subject of a miscarriage of justice, they do it when they know they're in the wrong either to hide their faults, or to put some doubt in the ref's mind so he gives them a few more 50-50 decisions).

If doing so might result in a goal being ruled out on a technicality, they will surround the ref every time they concede, even if they didn't think there was anything wrong.

 

[Acker79]

No, you don't wait for 7 minutes. You'd probably not need to wait more than 30 seconds at a push, at a point where the attacking team is still applying pressure, but not directly threatening the opponents goal (ie, the defenders will be back, attacking team with the ball back from the area).

So, yet another aspect that is all in the interpretation of the ref, and highly debatable, and open to controversy.

If the defending teams challenge is successful then it was right to break up the attack. If it isn't successful, the attacking team gets the ball, and although they will have lost a tiny bit of momentum, that won't happen again in that half because the other team will be out of challenges (you could even make it one team challenge (as opposed to ref instigated challenge) per game instead of per half, to reduce miss use.

But that isn't fair is it? Bolton v Man Utd. How would that game usually go? Bolton under pressure for most of the game, Bolton have one or two attacks in each half, and at most one of them results in a good chance. If that one good chance is cut short by an erroneous challenge there goes their chance of sneaking a one goal lead and battening down the hatches as they prepare for the onslaught.

Man utd loses momentum in one attack, so what? They're going to have 8 or 9 more in the half.

 

[Triggaaar]

So, yet another aspect that is all in the interpretation of the ref, and highly debatable, and open to controversy.

At the moment every single decisions is in the interpretation of the ref, and debatable, and open to controversy. If the ref is just stopping play to investigate a challenge, where's the controversy? If an attacking team lose a bit of momentum, that's hardly controversial in the scheme of things. Having a goal given when the ball never got within a yard of the goal is controversial.

Bolton v Man Utd... Bolton under pressure for most of the game, Bolton have one or two attacks in each half, and at most one of them results in a good chance. If that one good chance is cut short by an erroneous challenge there goes their chance of sneaking a one goal lead and battening down the hatches as they prepare for the onslaught.

Even Bolton vs Man U, Bolton will still have the ball a lot of times (not a large percentage, but still, dozens of times) - which one of those times will Man U fake a challenge? They'd only know to fake a challenge when Bolton already had the ball, and looked dangerous, at which point what would they actually be challenging - how Bolton won the ball 10 seconds earlier? And even if they did have something they could actually challenge, if Bolton looked dangerous, the ref could let play continue for a few seconds to see if a goal scoring opportunity would arrise.

If you're genuinly interested in this, but don't believe it would work in practice, find some youtube footage as an example of where you think it wouldn't work, as I think it's easily achievable.

 

[clapham_gull]

Leave football as it has been for over a century

It has changed in a number of ways, even in the modern era.

Introduction of a substitutes, originally only one allowed and only in the case of injury.

Introduction of Red and Yellow Cards

Offside rule changed in favour of attacker

Back-pass rule

Technical Area

Fourth Official

Professional Fouls

Squad Numbers

New light weight footballs

etc.. etc..

Something I didn't realise - you can now score direct from a goal kick. That was introduced in 1997

I'm not sold on the video thing, I'd rather see more officials tried first and probably give the fourth official more to do than simply keep the coaches inside the box.

Can't see the problem with officials sitting behind each goal like the ball boys. This does of course beg the question where all these officials are going to come from, you probably need four more per game.

 

[clapham_gull]

He is an interesting one, under what circumstances other than sending off or injury does the referee ask for a player to be permanently removed from the field of play ?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

He is an interesting one, under what circumstances other than sending off or injury does the referee ask for a player to be permanently removed from the field of play ?

If he is substituted

 

[Acker79]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1230713/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Dont-fooled-perfect-storm--video-replays-work.html