Video replay refs

[Jim D]

You really can't trial something at the World Cup Finals!

Why not? Every game is televised and with multiple cameras. We get replays on our screens within seconds of the action occuring - Henry's handball was replayed even before Ireland had kicked-off. Surely a radio link between the video ref and the pitch ref wouldn't be impossible to setup?

Especially when anyone that has actually thought it through realises that it would be a shambles and open to some serious abuse.

As far as I can see, the only people that have 'thought it through' are those who demand it for all matches. I don't see too many people arguing that the technology itself is bad - unless you count the purists who are against any form of change.

 

[Timbo]

Why not? Every game is televised and with multiple cameras. We get replays on our screens within seconds of the action occuring - Henry's handball was replayed even before Ireland had kicked-off. Surely a radio link between the video ref and the pitch ref wouldn't be impossible to setup?

As far as I can see, the only people that have 'thought it through' are those who demand it for all matches. I don't see too many people arguing that the technology itself is bad - unless you count the purists who are against any form of change.

You may have been typing this while i was posting my 'for example'.

I can see so many problems with it, when to stop the game, who decides, how long for a 'challenge', how to restart the game, what happens to the 'lost' time if a challenge is successful, that to trial it at the worlds showpiece event only to realise it doesnt work would absolutely ruin something the whole world looks forward too.

 

[Easy 10]

Who would call for the replays? If you were to let each team have a few challenges they would obviously need time to talk between manager and captain/player who was nearest. If for instance a player was bearing down on goal without a defender in sight, whats to stop the opposition suddenly deciding they want to challenge an innocuous looking challenge 60 seconds ago before the ball broke?

Well obviously thats not how it would work, the ball would have to be "dead" before a challenge could be reviewed. But you're right in that some tricky legislation would have to be brought in to administer these video appeals.

Why not? Every game is televised and with multiple cameras. We get replays on our screens within seconds of the action occuring - Henry's handball was replayed even before Ireland had kicked-off. Surely a radio link between the video ref and the pitch ref wouldn't be impossible to setup?

The World Cup Finals is absolutely NOT the place to introduce such a major fundamental change to the game. I'm against video being used anyway, but if they WERE to eventually bring it in, then it would have to be trialled at a lower level, or in the Europa or soemthing, just to get the processes in place and fine-tuned. Just arbitrarily throwing it together to use in the biggest football tournament on the planet would be utter madness.

Mind you, we're talking FIFA here, so nothing would surprise me.

 

[Timbo]

And as regards the Henry incident, thats fine as play stopped straight after the event. 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, which could have been 5 more minutes!

 

[beorhthelm]

I've played amateur football for thirty years. At a guess, about 1000 games, and there have been two qualified linesmen in THREE of those games.

In fact there hasn't even been a league-appointed ref in about 50 or 60 of them.

but you did have 2 linesmen and a ref, albiet not qualified, in all those games and they used the same rules as those who ref premier leauge games?

 

[Timbo]

Well obviously thats not how it would work, the ball would have to be "dead" before a challenge could be reviewed.

Thats your main problem, the ball doesn't go dead with enough regularity to make it workable. If someone should have had a penalty but the ball doesn't go dead for 5 minutes, what happens then?

 

[beorhthelm]

As far as I can see, the only people that have 'thought it through' are those who demand it for all matches. I don't see too many people arguing that the technology itself is bad - unless you count the purists who are against any form of change.

not true, this is the main objection, that even if you did have cameras it would lead to many break in play of minutes each as contentious points where replayed. how long does an "out" take to decide in Cricket when they go to TV? imagine that every few minutes for a goal, a penalty box incident, an offside, a corner, harsh tackle...

 

[Easy 10]

Thats your main problem, the ball doesn't go dead with enough regularity to make it workable. If someone should have had a penalty but the ball doesn't go dead for 5 minutes, what happens then?

Then you'll have a problem.

Unless you can only challenge a decision that HAS been made (ie the ref has blown and the game has already stopped), as opposed to appealing for a decision that wasn't given. But I'm not sure that would go far enough for the Fergies of this world, who are going apoplectic on the touchline for a foul thats not been given.

 

[Jim D]

Who would call for the replays? If you were to let each team have a few challenges they would obviously need time to talk between manager and captain/player who was nearest. If for instance a player was bearing down on goal without a defender in sight, whats to stop the opposition suddenly deciding they want to challenge an innocuous looking challenge 60 seconds ago before the ball broke?

Why would you allow challenges? They don't elsewhere (Cricket used to but not any more). The arrangement would be that the video ref would be called in to confirm that a goal had been scored legitimately.

 

[Gritt23]

Or maybe FIFA will just unofficially introduce something via there earpiece as clearly happened with ZZs red card in the last World Cup Final.

 

[Easy 10]

Why would you allow challenges? They don't elsewhere (Cricket used to but not any more). The arrangement would be that the video ref would be called in to confirm that a goal had been scored legitimately.

Bringing to an abrupt end any "spontaneous" goal celebrations for us.
"Hang on guys...gotta wait to see if the bloke in the stand says its ok......wait for it...YYEEEAAHHHHSSSSSS !"

Sounds great.

 

[Brovion]

... 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. Quite simply if the game is important enough (financially) to need to ensure that refereeing mistakes are limited the clubs involved will fund it won't they!

Indeed. After all the Kings Head v Royal George cricket match goes ahead on the village green - without video replays, Hawkeye, HotSpot etc. And usually with members of the batting side acting as umpires as opposed to having qualified officials.

I AM 'wary' of anything that can't be applied equally to all levels of the game, but as you say if the result is important enough then the money will be found for the technology. Otherwise as cricket as proved the lower levels of the game can get by just fine without it.

EDIT: There IS of course the whole problem (detailed by Easy 10 above) of how you actually apply the technology - but that's another argument.

 

[Timbo]

Why would you allow challenges? They don't elsewhere (Cricket used to but not any more). The arrangement would be that the video ref would be called in to confirm that a goal had been scored legitimately.

Then I dont think you have achieved anything. Why should a goal not be awarded when it should have? The standard of refereeing has improved incredibly over the last few years, sadly 'The last word with an*y G**y' and other such programmes undermine any good the referees are acheiving. Why can football not just go back to being a game of human endeavour where mistakes are accepted by both players and referees. Refs will never make as many mistakes as the players, no matter how bad they are.

 

[Jim D]

Bringing to an abrupt end any "spontaneous" goal celebrations for us.
"Hang on guys...gotta wait to see if the bloke in the stand says its ok......wait for it...YYEEEAAHHHHSSSSSS !"

Sounds great.

Sounds better than having the opposition spontaneously celebrating a dodgy goal (ie Maradona in 1986).

 

[Easy 10]

Sounds better than having the opposition spontaneously celebrating a dodgy goal (ie Maradona in 1986).

The fact you have to go back almost a quarter of a century to bring up such a famous travesty of a goal shows just how rare these occurrences are. As Timbo says, refs get the vast majority of decisions correct when it comes to whether a goal is legit or not, so bringing in something as radical as video replays to make decisions is just too big a trade-off. Particularly when a replay doesn't ALWAYS clearly resolve it one way or the other.

Its the thin end of the wedge with this stuff. Introduce it for goal decisions, then its fouls in the area, then fouls outside the area (that led to a goal), then offsides. Once you open the door a crack to let in the use of technology, it will end up taking over. You can guarantee it. And that will permanently alter the game as we know it, and not necessarily for the better.

I'm warming to the AAR idea (Additional Assistant Ref) behind the goal-line, to help as an extra pair of eyes as referral IF the ref needs it. But video replay will just bring too much baggage and need too much legislation.

 

[Gritt23]

Bringing to an abrupt end any "spontaneous" goal celebrations for us.
"Hang on guys...gotta wait to see if the bloke in the stand says its ok......wait for it...YYEEEAAHHHHSSSSSS !"

Sounds great.

It builds the tension very well when it happens at the cricket.

 

[Timbo]

It builds the tension very well when it happens at the cricket.

I dont think so. I think you always celebrate the awarding of a penalty more than the actual scoring of it. Nothing can replace the actual feeling of the ball hitting the net!

 

[Easy 10]

It builds the tension very well when it happens at the cricket.

Crickets completely different though, with a different context. Its not a flowing game.

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 ? Alright, I might surrepticiously glance at the lino before going NUTS when we score a goal, but actually waiting for a judge to give the all-clear ? No thank you sir.

 

[Timbo]

I'm warming to the AAR idea (Additional Assistant Ref) behind the goal-line, to help as an extra pair of eyes as referral IF the ref needs it. But video replay will just bring too much baggage and need too much legislation.

Even with that I dont think that in all the Europa games so far there has been an instance of the AAR actually helping get a decision right. I suppose he MAY have spotted Henry's handball but then again he may not have. 1 decision in 1 game doesnt justify starting putting 2 extra refs in 1000's of games.

 

[Easy 10]

Even with that I dont think that in all the Europa games so far there has been an instance of the AAR actually helping get a decision right. I suppose he MAY have spotted Henry's handball but then again he may not have. 1 decision in 1 game doesnt justify starting putting 2 extra refs in 1000's of games.

Perhaps so, but I think their mere presence actually dissuades players from cheating in the box, which is why you don't see all that many decisions made via the AAR. I've said before, when I watched Everton v AEK in the Europa, there was noticably less jostling, pushing and shoving in the box at corners.

When you've got a guy there who's sole remit is to look out for whats going on inside the box (as well as the usual ref and lino), I think players are less likely to try it on.