Video Replays

[Gregory2Smith1]

well we've got the comfy seats in the stands now,so I guess this will be a natural progression

there's already lots of stoppages for players feigning injury,so why not?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37978108

 

[happypig]

Yes. If we'd had them in the Middlesboro game there might have been a different outcome (and if there wasn't, we'd have been stronger to face Wednesday).

 

[1066familyman]

It's a No from me.

Leave it for cricket, rugby and tennis.

Football has enough look at me refs intent on stopping the flow of the game as it is.

 

[Albion my Albion]

I'm glad to put my answer one ahead.

 

[The Birdman]

Make us late getting home unless you are allowed two like cricket which you lose if you get it wrong but I don't think it will work. Goal line and after the event for foul play diving and cheating should be used more.

 

[drew]

Yes. If we'd had them in the Middlesboro game there might have been a different outcome (and if there wasn't, we'd have been stronger to face Wednesday).

Really? I'd like to believe it but the fact that Mike Dean had the chance to reconsider it for the appeal and didn't change his mind would suggest it would have made no difference.

As for the use of video replays, I'm against them during a game as it will interrupt the flow and teams would play up to them. When they went through a phase of stopping the games for pretty much all injuries some teams, eg Portugal, would stay on the ground to prevent the opposition attacking. The game would stop and Portugal would give the ball back but by then they would have regrouped.

They should be used more extensively post match to punish cheats and give lengthy bans for diving etc.

 

[Bwian]

If it helps eliminate faked injuries in deliberate attempts to get players sent off unjustly, cheating and diving then I'm in favour of it. Especially if it means all of the face clutching falling down like they've been hit by a brick bullshit gets the faker sent off then the sooner the better.

 

[Taybha]

Even with replays there will be certain incidents that can't be verified for sure , players have been cheating since the first ball was ever kicked , that will not change , if Sky , BT ect make funds available to ALL league clubs for goal line technology then fair enough use it for that , but i really can't see that happening for in play action as others have said it would probably add on 20 minutes to a game .

 

[Easy 10]

Its a horrible can of worms.

Line calls are one thing, because they're pretty much black and white. But so many decisions in football are subjective and borderline. Its fine if there's been a BLATANT foul, or something obvious that's been missed. But what about the multitude of incidents which are highly debatable ? Video replays don't always give conclusive "proof" one way or the other - and its those which will (a) take longer to resolve, and (b) lead to an even greater sense of injustice by whoever is on the wrong end of the (eventual) decision.

Wrong decisions happen, its part and parcel of the game. All you can rely on is it being an honest mistake, as the ref only gets one look at it at full speed. Start bringing in replays all over the shop though, and that's a whole different ball game. I can see video appeals being launched pretty much every time a goal is scored, as a manager asks officials to take a look at a little tug or some spurious incident earlier in the move, just on the offchance of getting the goal ruled out.

It'll fundamentally change the game as we know it.

 

[Easy 10]

If it helps eliminate faked injuries in deliberate attempts to get players sent off unjustly, cheating and diving then I'm in favour of it. Especially if it means all of the face clutching falling down like they've been hit by a brick bullshit gets the faker sent off then the sooner the better.

It'll never eliminate it.

What they should be doing (and should've done years ago) is use video evidence to retrospectively punish the divers and cheaters when it really is blatant enough to see that they've conned the ref. Mandatory 3 match ban, +1 for all future offences. That'll soon get the manager in the players ear to cut that shit out when he starts losing him for chunks of the season.

 

[Easy 10]

Add in the fact that you only get all the multiple camera angles at the top flight games. At Rochdale v Stevenage, you'll have 1.

Which means we'll presumably have a different set of rules in place at stadiums where you have 15-20 Sky / BT cameras covering the action, as opposed to the lower leagues, where you only have the 1. Football should always operate to the same set of universal rules, whether its in the Premier League or the Bananarama.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

I voted yes, with the caveat that it's on appeal like cricket and limited to one a game.

The teams would be forced to hold their appeal, they'd lose it if they were wrong.

I think it would take a lot of the diving and referee hassling out of the game.

 

[maltaseagull]

I would like to see something along the lines of citing as in Rugby Union.
If an incident is not seen by the referee, it can be reviewed later, and bans /other punishments can be applied.
This may help deter diving at least.

With regards to reviews for offsides etc considering the number of decisions made, I think the officials do a pretty good job overall. It's not often the TV replays prove the decision is wrong.

 

[McTavish]

Yes. If we'd had them in the Middlesboro game there might have been a different outcome (and if there wasn't, we'd have been stronger to face Wednesday).

Think you might be clutching at straws there. Many refs would have sent Stephens off and the decision certainly wouldn't have been over-turned by a video ref. Have a look here for a dicussion among a group of referees about the incident.

I know it's an article of faith on NSC that The Complete And Utter Shyster got it horribly wrong but he really didn't...

 

[GT49er]

Think you might be clutching at straws there. Many refs would have sent Stephens off and the decision certainly wouldn't have been over-turned by a video ref. Have a look here for a dicussion among a group of referees about the incident

Wish I could! - link goes to error message.

 

[Simster]

Its a horrible can of worms.

Line calls are one thing, because they're pretty much black and white. But so many decisions in football are subjective and borderline. Its fine if there's been a BLATANT foul, or something obvious that's been missed. But what about the multitude of incidents which are highly debatable ? Video replays don't always give conclusive "proof" one way or the other - and its those which will (a) take longer to resolve, and (b) lead to an even greater sense of injustice by whoever is on the wrong end of the (eventual) decision.

Wrong decisions happen, its part and parcel of the game. All you can rely on is it being an honest mistake, as the ref only gets one look at it at full speed. Start bringing in replays all over the shop though, and that's a whole different ball game. I can see video appeals being launched pretty much every time a goal is scored, as a manager asks officials to take a look at a little tug or some spurious incident earlier in the move, just on the offchance of getting the goal ruled out.

It'll fundamentally change the game as we know it.

So did the pass back rule, and very much for the better. I don't think that is a bad thing in itself.

It is a can of worms so I tend to think the way to do this is have a review system. Any decision or non-decision can be reviewed up to twice in a half by any team. If it is not turned over, the team loses a review. The benefit to this is that refs would sure feel more comfortable booking players for diving, and it wouldn't take long for that to be drastically reduced. The biggest criticism of football is the play-acting, and it really ought to be stamped out.

The thing is, football is a low scoring game and as such, key decisions heavily influence the outcome. It seems to work well in tight defensive rugby matches where the pattern of a match is broadly similar to football (say, a 3 try game, few penalties conceded). I remember England losing to South Africa in the world cup final, and a key replay decision was made to determine whether or not England had scored a game changing try.

 

[happypig]

Think you might be clutching at straws there. Many refs would have sent Stephens off and the decision certainly wouldn't have been over-turned by a video ref. Have a look here for a dicussion among a group of referees about the incident.

I know it's an article of faith on NSC that The Complete And Utter Shyster got it horribly wrong but he really didn't...

A video review might well have led to Ramirez's sending off for knocking the card away too...

 

[studio150]

Goal line technology is already present at the top level of the game.

We already have goal line officials in European games, which makes 5 officials plus the 4th (or is that 6th) official to see infringements, so what is left for video replays/

I don't want a situation where the flow of the game stops for some length of time, while the video referees play the tape back and forth and take ages to make a decision. The one area where it could be productive is in the awarding of penalties or free kicks close to the edge of the penalty area. Then not to decide whether the referee was correct in it being a foul or handball, but whether the infringement was in or outside of the penalty area so that the correct restart is made.

It certainly would have been useful when Dunk fouled the Southampton player in the back row of the stand at St. Marys but for some strange reason we conceded a penalty.

Would the video replay just be for the additional referees or the referees and team managers or for all within the ground and at home.

 

[McTavish]

Wish I could! - link goes to error message.

hmm...works for me. This is the link http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/middlesbrough-v-brighton-07-05-16.7757/

EDIT - link now fixed

 

[Easy 10]

So did the pass back rule, and very much for the better. I don't think that is a bad thing in itself.

It is a can of worms so I tend to think the way to do this is have a review system. Any decision or non-decision can be reviewed up to twice in a half by any team. If it is not turned over, the team loses a review. The benefit to this is that refs would sure feel more comfortable booking players for diving, and it wouldn't take long for that to be drastically reduced. The biggest criticism of football is the play-acting, and it really ought to be stamped out.

The thing is, football is a low scoring game and as such, key decisions heavily influence the outcome. It seems to work well in tight defensive rugby matches where the pattern of a match is broadly similar to football (say, a 3 try game, few penalties conceded). I remember England losing to South Africa in the world cup final, and a key replay decision was made to determine whether or not England had scored a game changing try.

I can just see it video replays causing a whole new set of problems that do not currently exist.

You raise an important point, because appealing a non-decision would be every bit as important as appealing a decision. If you’re appealing a decision, then the ball is already dead. But if you’re appealing a non-decision, you’d surely have to wait for the next break in play for the video review. What happens if between the incident and the appeal, a goal is scored ? What if the manager just uses an appeal on the offchance of getting a goal chalked off for something, anything ? Might as well, as the cost of losing an appeal is not as great as the cost of losing a goal, especially a last minute jobby. Do we really want appeals to become commonplace, before we can actually celebrate a goal being given ?

Lots and lots of things to think about. Video replays would need a whole raft of rules brought in to accommodate them, and for what ? A second opinion, which as we all know, will often be just as open to interpretation and debate as the original decision was.