Video Replays

[Giraffe]

I'm in the no camp. Seeing it on rugby is painful. Only sport which lends itself naturally to it is cricket as it is a "slow" game anyway.

And also controversial decisions are a part of football.

 

[Easy 10]

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.

I agree with you on this. I have less of a problem with decisions being made on the basis of line calls (was the ball out, did it cross the line, was the foul inside or outside the area). That's pretty much a black and white decision.

But offsides, fouls, dives, perceived playacting...those things aren't always blatantly obvious or an easy call to make, even with the benefit of a replay.

 

[Simster]

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.

I don't dispute most of what you say, but ultimately I think it is worth piloting. Diving and faking injury has gone on too long and a major turn-off for so many would-be fans of the game. It needs stamping out. Also, ludicrous decisions do happen and shouldn't be part of the game. To suggest this is a reasonable price to pay for not spending a minute reviewing a decision is absolutely LAUGHABLE in my opinion.

I'm in the no camp. Seeing it on rugby is painful. Only sport which lends itself naturally to it is cricket as it is a "slow" game anyway.

Disagree - it is only painful when the process takes unreasonably long, by which I mean you can see the footage yourself and arrive at a decision AGES before it is made official. Again, I think this could be ironed out with a bit of thought.

And anyway, how much of a problem is it really in the context of an 80 minute match?

And also controversial decisions are a part of football.

Yes, but it is shìt when it is beyond dispute and they are unequivocally wrong. Pre-goal-line technology of course, but Lampard v Germany made a mockery of the game.

 

[Giraffe]

I don't dispute most of what you say, but ultimately I think it is worth piloting. Diving and faking injury has gone on too long and a major turn-off for so many would-be fans of the game. It needs stamping out. Also, ludicrous decisions do happen and shouldn't be part of the game. To suggest this is a reasonable price to pay for not spending a minute reviewing a decision is absolutely LAUGHABLE in my opinion.

Disagree - it is only painful when the process takes unreasonably long, by which I mean you can see the footage yourself and arrive at a decision AGES before it is made official. Again, I think this could be ironed out with a bit of thought.

And anyway, how much of a problem is it really in the context of an 80 minute match?

Yes, but it is shìt when it is beyond dispute and they are unequivocally wrong. Pre-goal-line technology of course, but Lampard v Germany made a mockery of the game.

The goal line technology was long overdue as the Lampard goal showed. Thats just Blatter being the **** he is.

But goal line technology is quick and indisputable. All other decisions are not. Offside decisions are possibly the closest to it but even then there is margin for error and it would still hold up the game.

I sometimes see what is a clear penalty live from one angle, watch it from another and it is less clear. Live is sometimes a better judge of the speed etc. Not convinced that you can always tell it's a penalty from replays. And indeed I've seen many arguments over replays from pundits and fans alike. Until there is a way for technology to be 100% (which I don't think is ever possible) then I don't think it should be added.

However I would be an advocate of the fourth official being used more as an extra pair of eyes, for off the ball stuff etc. Sometimes this happens, sometimes they are just a board carrier.

 

[Easy 10]

I don't dispute most of what you say, but ultimately I think it is worth piloting. Diving and faking injury has gone on too long and a major turn-off for so many would-be fans of the game. It needs stamping out. Also, ludicrous decisions do happen and shouldn't be part of the game. To suggest this is a reasonable price to pay for not spending a minute reviewing a decision is absolutely LAUGHABLE in my opinion.

I’m not disputing much of what you say either. I 100% agree the diving and cheating needs to be stamped out, but IMO it needs to be done with retrospective reviews, followed by a CLOBBERING punishment for the perp, particularly repeat offenders. Now you could argue this doesn’t benefit the opposing team on the day, and you’d be right. But once a few hefty fines AND lengthy bans have been dished out, the players will eventually get the message and the problem will greatly diminish. The culture will change.

At the moment, there’s no punishment in place to stop a dive (other than the very occasional yellow), so the risk/reward is weighted heavily in favour of the player trying it on. If a player knows that his dive that got someone booked/sent off or earned a pen WILL be scrutinised by a panel on Monday, and it would result in a 3/4/5 match ban if found guilty, then he’s going to think twice about diving. That’s how this needs to be tackled IMO.

As for ludicrous decisions…unfortunately, its all-or-nothing with video replays. You’d have to scrutinise the borderline, debatable ones as well as the obvious ones and make a decision. And that’s where interpretation rears its ugly head. Personally, I prefer relying on an honest (if flawed) decision, even when occasionally it will leave you exasperated. By and large, they get *most* stuff right, and I’m ok with that, because the alternative is fraught with additional complications.

 

[Nixonator]

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

So I read the thread you linked.

Seems like opinions are 50/50 on it? Also, some of those who claim it was a red stated that remirez should have also walked.

Nope, think I'm going to keep my opinion of being royally ****ed over that day.

 

[Titanic]

NO. Thank you.

 

[GT49er]

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

Cheers!

 

[nicko31]

Hate the video replays in other sports, in tennis for example its cringeworthy

The instant decision of the official is what makes football special. Just because there is big money in the game it gives no grounds for it, no thanks

 

[McTavish]

So I read the thread you linked.

Seems like opinions are 50/50 on it? Also, some of those who claim it was a red stated that remirez should have also walked.

Nope, think I'm going to keep my opinion of being royally ****ed over that day.

Very few of the refs thought that the red was an obvious mistake, most thought that it could have been yellow or red and that neither would be wrong - not the sort of thing that would have been over-turned by a video ref and that is what is being discussed here. Same with the Ramirez card.

 

[Mayonaise]

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

I am also a ruby union fan and some referees seem unable to make a decision without referring it upstairs - killing the game!

Whilst decisions might be improved, I would hate this in football.

Seems to work well in cricket and tennis where the action starts and stops regularly anyway.

 

[Mellotron]

Worth trying. It WILL mean more right decisions, which is a good thing. Football at grassroots is already MASSIVELY different to football at the top level (goal line tech, 4th/5th official, countless other things) so that's a non-point for me.

Literally the only issue is stopping/slowing the flow of the game. IF (and it's a huge if) they can find a way of implementing it that doesn't significantly alter this, then it's a no-brainer.

 

[Easy 10]

Keith Hackett in todays Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...lping-referees-can-only-be-considered-a-good/

"I would eventually like to see reviews for more than just controversial goals, penalties, red cards and cases of mistaken identity, but I can understand the current process.

People frequently ask what would happen if a decision is overturned at one end and play has to be dragged back after a goal has subsequently been scored seconds later at the other.

But that is an extreme scenario and my view is any competent video official would not need that amount of time to check the footage.

He should have a screen running in real time and another screen running at a five or 10-second delay so he can look at an incident again without having to go through a long replay process.

If he does have to go through such a long process then he should just accept it has been missed and move on.

One concern I do have is what happens when the referee changes his decision on advice from the video assistant but, when he himself later sees the footage, he believes his original decision should have stood?

We need to make sure the video assistant is up to the job because we have a number of referees on the elite panel at the moment who have not had a good season and, on form, are not at the same level as the likes of Mark Clattenburg and Martin Atkinson.

Will it be those guys sitting in a van inputting to someone like Clattenburg? That could be a potential weakness.

I would also not limit who can look at footage of overturned incidents to the video assistant.

At the moment, the manager and his coaching staff are not allowed to view screens in the technical area, despite members of the crowd being able to do so on their mobile phones.

Even the big screens cannot show controversial incidents and, for me, that area just needs to be opened up.

We have just got to get real and say, ‘Let’s put technology to use so everyone is better informed’."


There's just so much there that's scary that frankly I don't even know where to start.

 

[El Presidente]

I use video replays quite often when viewing my film collection.

 

[pasty]

Not sure how it can be implemented during the game, but if it stops things like this and punishes the cheats, then I'm all for it.

Writhing in agony one minute, then sprinting like Usain Bolt 10 seconds later

[YT]mWgFthufKi8[/YT]

 

[Two Professors]

Should be allowed at clubs that have celebration music for goals,particularly if it's Glad all Over.

 

[halbpro]

Agree with [MENTION=70]Easy 10[/MENTION] really, just too problematic and it's not really going to improve things. You look at the amount of time they spend pouring over marginal calls on MOTD and the like without coming to a definitive answer. So many calls are judgement calls, particularly when you look at elements like handball. There's also those tackles that look much worse in slow motion than they were in reality.

There's obviously some benefit to it, but is it worth the downside?

 

[symyjym]

It has been trialed and tested so as long as it has been seen to work I don’t see a problem. Instead of players complaining a goal was offside or protesting at a penalty, this time will be replaced by a 10 second video review. There will be absolutely no reason for players or fans to complain about a refs decision and it will stop any intended ref fooling.

It also can't be compared with rugby when you are trying to spot a ball in a bundle of 30 to judge a try.