Video replay

[The Kraken]

So, given yesterday's utter howler for City's second goal, where do you stand on video replay?

 

A season or two ago I would have said no way, don't want it, don't think it would work. But I think I'm reversing my opinion on it, with modern technology as it is decisions like yesterday could be reviewed in a matter of seconds. I'm not sure where the boundaries should be of what can get reviewed, and exactly how it should be implemented, but as someone who was staunchly against video replay I'm surprised to find myself starting to favour the idea.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

FFS, I just wrote a big rant about this on the Poch "dumb decisions thread".

 

Is it wrong to post it here as well?

[shurlock]

One area I agree with Big Sam on - there should be a challenge system like US football, though they also have timeouts. Managers should get 2/3 challenges per game: if they win it, they keep their challenge; if they lose it, they have one less challenge. When mangers are out of challenges, they have to lump it and accept the consequences. Replays which are too ambiguous to call go with the ref's original decision.

 

The real issue is what is and isn't reviewable: offsides are closer to goal line decisions in that they are more objective but they aren't much help when a ref or lino has flagged for offside, the play has stopped but the player was on. They are better at dealing with situations like yesterday. But that's better than nothing.

 

Pens are infinitely more complicated, though replays could stamp out certain types of abuse -whether or not there was contact but even that's fraught.

Edited 6 April, 2014 by shurlock

[The Kraken]

One area I agree with Big Sam on - there should be a challenge system like US football. Managers should get 2/3 challenges per game: if they win it, they keep their challenge; if they lose it, they have one less challenge. When mangers are out of challenges, they have to lump it and accept the consequences. Replays which are too ambiguous to call go with the ref's original decision.

 

The real issue is what is and isn't reviewable: offsides are closer to goal line decisions in that they are more objective but they aren't much help when a ref or lino has flagged for offside, the play has stopped but in fact the player was on. They are better at dealing with situations like yesterday.

 

Pens are infinitely more complicated, though replays could stamp out certain types of abuse -whether or not there was contact but even that's fraught.

Actually, I don't really like the challenge system idea for football. Simply for the fact that I think it's open for abuse by managers. I prefer the system in rugby where the ref can go "upstairs" and ask if there's any reason he can't award the try; he can also watch the video replay and make the call for himself.

[igsey]

I've always been in favour of it, and yesterday's decision is just reinforcing that view. Lallana said after the game that the second City goal was shown on the big screen and everyone, referee included, could see it was offside.

 

People were against goalline tech as well, but look how well that's worked so far this season.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Sorry, from the other thread. But is relevant to this discussion.

 

I say this so often.

 

The game is unbelievably fast these days. Far more so than could ever have been imagined when the game was first conceived, or when referees and linesmen were first introduced.

 

The game has changed, massively. The way the game is officiated needs to change accordingly.

 

This desire to cling on to an outdated mode of officiating this game is frankly bizarre.

 

There are 3 officials (the 4th does nothing in reality) to 22 players. Then look at the size of the pitch, especially somewhere like the etihad or old trafford. Asking referees or there assitants to be able to cover the entire pitch and see everything at the pace the game is played is simply ridiculous. They do not stand a chance, no one would.

 

Factor in the rise in gamesmanship and cheating (yes Toure I am very much looking at you - marvellous player you are, but your behaviour as a captain was disgusting) and three officials, nowhere near as fit as the players (understandably) the job is nearly impossible.

 

It is a modern game, we need modern officiating. It would have taken seconds for an extra official to watch a replay and see that was offside. The argument that technology would slow down the game is absolute nonsense, any contentious decision is argued over anyway. A replay available to the 4th official or a video ref would significantly cut down on this.

 

There needs to be more officials, an assistant in each half on each side (basically 4 lino's instead of 2). How on earth can a lino spot something on the far side, or half way down the pitch on the line? I can't really blame them for getting those sorts of things wrong, it's a nigh on impossible task.

 

But, yesterdays decision (offside) was an utter joke. Sat behind the goal you could see it wasn't even close. Granted it was a quick (and yeah if I'm honest a very good) move, but that was elementary. My gf, who knows sod all about football could see it and was shocked it wasn't given ffs.

 

Pochettino will most likely get a fine, and the assistant will go and award Chelsea or United another ridiculous game changing goal, or penalise the wrong player with no consequence.

 

Change is needed immediately.

 

sorry for the rant

[Sour Mash]

No way, it would completely kill the game. At what point would play be stopped?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

No way, it would completely kill the game. At what point would play be stopped?

 

Because the relentless moaning and haranguing of the ref with every decision doesn't stop the game? If anything, it would help speed up the game in those cases.

[Glasgow_Saint]

Managers should get 2 challenges per game... Similar to Tennis

[shurlock]

Actually, I don't really like the challenge system idea for football. Simply for the fact that I think it's open for abuse by managers. I prefer the system in rugby where the ref can go "upstairs" and ask if there's any reason he can't award the try; he can also watch the video replay and make the call for himself.

 

How is it open to abuse? Managers have to think twice before challenging in case they're out of challenges when something genuine or serious comes up. It has a great disciplining effect.

 

Following the rugby route isn't a bad idea, though it would probably lead to more stoppages and I'm less optimistic about refs willingness to question their own decisions - unless they are in real doubt. For instance, I could have imagined Foy referring the pen decision to video given his clear hesitation (it was a pen) - but I don't think he would have done the same for offside which ultimately was the more egregious error of the two incidents.

[DuncanRG]

It would be simple enough to give the fourth official a screen or tablet so they can review penalty decisions or offsides which lead to goals. I don't think there's any need for challenges, because they would only be made in situations which result in goals, i.e. situations where there's already a break in play.

 

It would also stop players mobbing and intimidating officials when they make controversial decisions. Only managers and the odd full back would give the fourth official stick.

[igsey]

Managers should get 2 challenges per game... Similar to Tennis

 

The problem with that would be managers wasting time by challenging decisions that they know were called correctly, as happens in tennis. Maybe if we dropped the ridiculous system of keeping the clock going and then adding on an arbitrary period of time, to the nearest minute, at the end of each half to make up for stoppages and switched to a rugby-like system, where the clock stops when the game does, the challenge system would work. Can't see either of them being implemented, sadly.

[Whitey Grandad]

No, television has too much influence already.

[shurlock]

The problem with that would be managers wasting time by challenging decisions that they know were called correctly, as happens in tennis. Maybe if we dropped the ridiculous system of keeping the clock going and then adding on an arbitrary period of time, to the nearest minute, at the end of each half to make up for stoppages and switched to a rugby-like system, where the clock stops when the game does, the challenge system would work. Can't see either of them being implemented, sadly.

 

 

Why? The clock would stop while the decision was being challenged. Second you burn a valuable challenge that might be needed for later on in the game.

[Wade Garrett]

It would be simple enough to give the fourth official a screen or tablet so they can review penalty decisions or offsides which lead to goals. I don't think there's any need for challenges, because they would only be made in situations which result in goals, i.e. situations where there's already a break in play.

 

It would also stop players mobbing and intimidating officials when they make controversial decisions. Only managers and the odd full back would give the fourth official stick.

 

Like that idea. I would take the 4th official away from the touch line as well, so as not to be influenced by anyone else.

[The Kraken]

How is it open to abuse? Managers have to think twice before challenging in case they're out of challenges when something genuine or serious comes up. It has a great disciplining effect.

 

It depends how it is implemented, but there's definitely a possibility that referrals could be used in the wrong way. It's not as simple as to say that you can go back and refer it once the ball has gone out of play, as it can stay active for quite some time. So when, and how, does play get stopped when a manager makes a challenge? I genuinely don't know, but the rules would have to be crystal clear on it. Say a striker is bearing down on goal, and the opposing manager makes a challenge; when is play stopped? There's no saying when the ball will go out.

 

Following the rugby route isn't a bad idea, though it would probably lead to more stoppages and I'm less optimistic about refs willingness to question their own decisions - unless they are in real doubt. For instance, I could have imagined Foy referring the pen decision to video given his clear hesitation (it was a pen) - but I don't think he would have done the same for offside which ultimately was the more egregious error of the two incidents.

I also think there's a definite grey area, in that some refs will deem something a foul whereas others wouldn't. We've seen it many times on MOTD where pundits will disagree about whether it was a penalty or not. And yes, the refs would need to be encouraged to dispense with their pride and actually refer the challenges if in any doubt whatsoever.

[Sour Mash]

Because the relentless moaning and haranguing of the ref with every decision doesn't stop the game? If anything, it would help speed up the game in those cases.

No it doesn't stop or slow the game as much as a video review. At what point would you stop play to review the decision?

[Batman]

If the officials need video replays for decisions like yesterday's blatant offside. Then we are in trouble

 

It was a disgusting decision to allow that goal to stand. The ref was looking straight at it and the Lino was in line.

 

What annoyed me was the idiots on BT saying it was a lovely ball by silva to set up the goal. Of course it was, he was miles offside and as a result, under no pressure

[shurlock]

If the officials need video replays for decisions like yesterday's blatant offside. Then we are in trouble

 

It was a disgusting decision to allow that goal to stand. The ref was looking straight at it and the Lino was in line.

 

What annoyed me was the idiots on BT saying it was a lovely ball by silva to set up the goal. Of course it was, he was miles offside and as a result, under no pressure

 

How long did it take those helmets to admit the error of their ways?

[cellone]

No it doesn't stop or slow the game as much as a video review. At what point would you stop play to review the decision?

Football is a stop start game, where does this myth that it is a continuous and constant flowing game come from?

[Ziggy]

Video replays are bound to come in eventually. There is too much at stake these days to allow errors like yesterday's to continue.

[Sour Mash]

Football is a stop start game, where does this myth that it is a continuous and constant flowing game come from?

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post?

[positivepete]

A decision review when a goal has been scored, as was the case yesterday, will not slow the game down. If was kept to that, like the goal line technology, is it a goal or not, is a sensible move. The game is about goals, we should at least award them correctly.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

No it doesn't stop or slow the game as much as a video review. At what point would you stop play to review the decision?

 

What a load of crap. Balls in the net, the game is already stopped.

 

5 second replay, goal or free kick.

 

No players arguing.

 

Pretty simple really.

[Whitey Grandad]

If the officials need video replays for decisions like yesterday's blatant offside. Then we are in trouble.

 

Precisely. All you are saying with a video referral is: 'We don't like this ref, let's try another one'.

[Sour Mash]

What a load of crap. Balls in the net, the game is already stopped.

 

5 second replay, goal or free kick.

 

No players arguing.

 

Pretty simple really.

But what if it takes more than 5 seconds to come to the correct decision? So you'd only use this system if the ball has gone in the back of the net? A bizarre, arbitrary basis for using such a system.

[DuncanRG]

Precisely. All you are saying with a video referral is: 'We don't like this ref, let's try another one'.

 

Or rather - 'this ref is prone to human error - let's make sure'.

 

But what if it takes more than 5 seconds to come to the correct decision? So you'd only use this system if the ball has gone in the back of the net? A bizarre, arbitrary basis for using such a system.

 

Arbitrary? That's when it matters most and when it will least disturb the flow of play.

 

If the time it takes to work it out is a problem, you could set a limit. Referees only get a couple of seconds in games, so a fourth official with 10 or 20 or more (and ability to pause/replay) will be an improvement at no cost to the game's flow.

Edited 6 April, 2014 by DuncanRG

[Ziggy]

Precisely. All you are saying with a video referral is: 'We don't like this ref, let's try another one'.

 

Isn't it just checking to ensue the correct decision is made? It works fine in rugby. I wouldn't might a slight delay if it meant the right decisions are given.

[Sour Mash]

Or rather - 'this ref is prone to human error - let's make sure'.

 

 

 

Arbitrary? That's when it matters most and when it will least disturb the flow of play.

 

If the time it takes to work it out is a problem, you could set a limit. Referees only get a couple of seconds in games, so a fourth official with 10 or 20 or more (and ability to pause/replay) will be an improvement at no cost to the game's flow.

So what if the decision in question is a penalty not given and the ref waves play on? You'd just not include any such decisions in this system, despite them being as vital to the outcome of the game as if the ball is in the back of the net? It doesn't make sense I'm afraid.

[The Kraken]

So what if the decision in question is a penalty not given and the ref waves play on? You'd just not include any such decisions in this system, despite them being as vital to the outcome of the game as if the ball is in the back of the net? It doesn't make sense I'm afraid.

This is the nub of it for me. Where does the referral system come in? For all decisions? Or just some? If just some, which ones? As much as I think it could be a good idea, I also recognise that there's a possibility it could also completely ruin the game if it's applied in the wrong fashion.

[Goatboy]

goals, penalties, sending offs, bookings.

[DuncanRG]

So what if the decision in question is a penalty not given and the ref waves play on? You'd just not include any such decisions in this system, despite them being as vital to the outcome of the game as if the ball is in the back of the net? It doesn't make sense I'm afraid.

 

It's not perfect but it's better. You'd rather have no wrongly given penalties and some wrongly waved away than some of each.

 

It may favour defenders over attackers but it would also significantly reduce diving.

[Sour Mash]

It's not perfect but it's better. You'd rather have no wrongly given penalties and some wrongly waved away than some of each.

 

It may favour defenders over attackers but it would also significantly reduce diving.

So a random, arbitrary system deciding on a small number of key decisions and ignoring the majority.

[DuncanRG]

It's not random or arbitrary, it's when a goal is scored, a penalty is given or a red card is issued. There are two reasons for that:

 

1. Goals, penalties and red cards matter more than anything else

2. Those situations already involve breaks in play

 

Intervening when a penalty or card is not given would require a break in play that would not otherwise be there, which is the main reason people oppose technology.

 

EDIT: Thinking about it, it would make sense to add red cards, so I have done. Similarly important and also attached to breaks in play. I'd say that, combined with existing goal-line technology, would cover the majority of key decisions.

Edited 6 April, 2014 by DuncanRG

[richard]

It's not random or arbitrary, it's when a goal is scored, a penalty is given or a red card is issued. There are two reasons for that:

 

1. Goals, penalties and red cards matter more than anything else

2. Those situations already involve breaks in play

 

Intervening when a penalty or card is not given would require a break in play that would not otherwise be there, which is the main reason people oppose technology.

 

EDIT: Thinking about it, it would make sense to add red cards, so I have done. Similarly important and also attached to breaks in play. I'd say that, combined with existing goal-line technology, would cover the majority of key decisions.

 

This system gets my vote. That list covers the things that mess up a game when awarded unfairly.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's not random or arbitrary, it's when a goal is scored, a penalty is given or a red card is issued. There are two reasons for that:

 

1. Goals, penalties and red cards matter more than anything else

2. Those situations already involve breaks in play

 

Intervening when a penalty or card is not given would require a break in play that would not otherwise be there, which is the main reason people oppose technology.

 

EDIT: Thinking about it, it would make sense to add red cards, so I have done. Similarly important and also attached to breaks in play. I'd say that, combined with existing goal-line technology, would cover the majority of key decisions.

 

What about when a red card is not given when it should have been?

[david in sweden]

So, given yesterday's utter howler for City's second goal, where do you stand on video replay?

 

A season or two ago I would have said no way, don't want it, don't think it would work. But I think I'm reversing my opinion on it, with modern technology as it is decisions like yesterday could be reviewed in a matter of seconds. I'm not sure where the boundaries should be of what can get reviewed, and exactly how it should be implemented, but as someone who was staunchly against video replay I'm surprised to find myself starting to favour the idea.

 

 

 

According to a report I heard, the fourth official used to sit in front of a TV monitor by the side of the pitch..

 

.....but the idea was abandoned because managers /staff from both teams used to " invade his area " and try to see pix./ affect his judgement on decisions.

 

It's a good idea but why not find the man a secure area where he can't be influenced. It's crazy when I ...and millions of others can see the real action on SKY whilst the officials don't get to see ANYTHING:

 

Surely ..." penalty shouts " and offside decsions are far more commonplace in a match than goaline incidents.

Edited 6 April, 2014 by david in sweden

[Wes Tender]

This weekend there was the fiasco of the incompetance of the linesman in our match and another couple of dubious decisions in the Liverpool/West Ham match. As both matches comprised teams chasing the Premiership title, it really has become too important to leave decisions like those to the referees when there is the technology available to ensure that the team that won the match did so fairly, and not because the officials cocked it up.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Precisely. All you are saying with a video referral is: 'We don't like this ref, let's try another one'.

 

I just think it's utterly ridiculous three men are expected to cover so much ground, with so many people on it, especially compared to something like tennis.

 

It's not a case of we don't like this one, it's a case of let's help the ones we have.

 

It's obvious they can't do it alone, to refuse to change it out of tradition is just stupid.

[DuncanRG]

What about when a red card is not given when it should have been?

 

I mentioned that - if it can be done without interrupting the game, then of course. It's about ensuring as many correct decisions as possible without any interference in play. At the moment it's not possible to cover everything.

 

As I see it, the only problem with covering some decisions but not others is that it might incentivise certain ways of playing. I can't quite imagine how or if that would play out, though.

[Whitey Grandad]

I just think it's utterly ridiculous three men are expected to cover so much ground, with so many people on it, especially compared to something like tennis.

 

It's not a case of we don't like this one, it's a case of let's help the ones we have.

 

It's obvious they can't do it alone, to refuse to change it out of tradition is just stupid.

 

For offside the official is in the best possible position, far better than any television camera and especially for marginal ones. It's not difficult to get the decision correct, which is what makes yesterday's fiasco all the more remarkable.

[DuncanRG]

For offside the official is in the best possible position, far better than any television camera and especially for marginal ones. It's not difficult to get the decision correct, which is what makes yesterday's fiasco all the more remarkable.

 

TV picks up a remarkable number of errors and (unlike some penalty/card decisions) don't take long to spot. Why not iron them out?

 

One problem that's just occurred to me is offsides which are wrongly given when a player would go clean through, or otherwise have a good chance of scoring. Take Sanogo today as an example. Not sure how you'd fix that...

Edited 6 April, 2014 by DuncanRG

[Whitey Grandad]

TV picks up a remarkable number of errors and (unlike some penalty/card decisions) don't take long to spot. Why not iron them out?

 

One problem that's just occurred to me is offsides which are wrongly given when a player would go clean through, or otherwise have a good chance of scoring. Take Sanogo today as an example. Not sure how you'd fix that...

 

I've also witnessed a lot of drivel poured over some video replays and slow-motion will never give a true impression of what actually occurred.

[Matty's Caddy]

The only rugby match I've ever watched live was the Heineken cup final at the millennium stadium.

What I noticed was that the video replays on the big screen is all part of the entertainment. Everybody is involved. I personally enjoyed it. With the speed that it can be put on the screen and replayed, there really is no excuse.

[Jimmy_D]

I don't think there should be any input from teams (ie. no challenges or reviews) but I do think there should be measures to try and ensure the cameras are independent, and that the officials should be able to use the information from the cameras in their own decision making.

[redder freak]

The only rugby match I've ever watched live was the Heineken cup final at the millennium stadium.

What I noticed was that the video replays on the big screen is all part of the entertainment. Everybody is involved. I personally enjoyed it. With the speed that it can be put on the screen and replayed, there really is no excuse.

I agree. I think it's bound to come to football sooner or later. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.

[Lighthouse]

I'm all in favour of technology for stuff like this. We've already seen goals from Fonte and Gallagher given by the goal decision system this season even if the lino probably saw them go in anyway. Video replays can very easily and quickly be viewed without breaking up play. You can watch any game on Sky and see slo-mo replays from 4 different camera angles before play kicks off again anyway.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but it is largely the officials and their unions which have been opposing video replays, claiming it will undermine their authority. This seems completely illogical to me, the whole point of a video ref system would be to spot and correct their mistakes instantly so there are no consequences. If such a system had been used yesterday, the 2nd goal wouldn't have been given we'd have had a quick laugh about how the lino got it wrong and moved on. Instead we've got a situation where the game swung on a horrendous error and the lino's mistake decided the game and had a fairly significant impact on the title race.

 

The logic seems to be that because the lino's decision stood, somehow the world will just forget about it and move on like it didn't happen.

Edited 6 April, 2014 by Lighthouse

[ant]

Existing technology is such that there shouldn't be any need for replays and challenges/appeals - near-instantaneous decisions can be directly fed back to the officials.

[Sour Mash]

Existing technology is such that there shouldn't be any need for replays and challenges/appeals - near-instantaneous decisions can be directly fed back to the officials.

Plenty of decisions take several replays and deliberations from those in the studio and/or commentating before being able to make a decision, that would also be the case if used by officials. There will be plenty that aren't instantaneous.

[Ohio Saint]

Plenty of decisions take several replays and deliberations from those in the studio and/or commentating before being able to make a decision, that would also be the case if used by officials. There will be plenty that aren't instantaneous.

 

Then make a time limit. 10 seconds to override a bad decision via technology, or the bad decision still stands. They have committees with a ton of experts to come up with ideas.