Sepp Blatter considers "review of decsions"

[Sour Mash]

whilst I agree with your point,

I have often timed " stoppages " in games and the average throw-in can easily take upto 20 secs., a corner - usually around 45 secs. and free-kicks can take min.1 minute often longer.......

Not to mention the obvious stoppages for injuries, bookings etc.

 

As we are used to regular " stops " like that throughout a game... it shouldn't take so long to look at a TV monitor and make a decision.

 

 

It can takes ages to review a decision, 5 or 10mins easily, so that would kill the game. And there are plenty of decisions that are still very much up for debate even when watching video replays.

 

And at what point would you stop play to review the decision and who's choice would the review/challenge be at?

[FloridaMarlin]

You have to think of the practicalities of it and how they will work.

 

What can you appeal against?

 

There are black and white decisions such as the ball crossing over the line and offside where it does work and where it could work again.

 

But decisions on fouls are often not clear cut. How many times to do we see pundits and studio guests disagreeing about whether a player got a slight touch on the ball or whether that's negated by the tackle coming in from the side or behind? Is a third official in a TV studio going to be able to determine if that elbow to the face is deliberate or an accident caused by a player trying to give himself momentum?

 

And as for handballs. Is a TV replay really going to help decide if there was intention to handle the ball, or whether it was accidental handball? Is there any reason to suppose the tv replay official's interpretation will not be as fallible as the ref on the pitch?

 

As long as there is a question of judgement in a decision there will always be dispute. Referring it upstairs only means another official has to make a judgement call similar to the one made on the pitch, and there is no guarantee the TV official's call is correct.

 

When referrals were introduced to cricket, umpire Peter Willey (the hardest man in the game when he was playing. He once threatened to punch Botham's lights out in a match, and Beefy pushed off to field at third man a bit sharpish) said it wouldn't be long until the umpire's role was reduced to counting the pebbles in their pocket for the number of balls in an over. He's not far wrong there.

 

Blatter and Fifa are bowing to pressure from the TV companies who want to increase the drama in their coverage.

 

There's nothing Sky's collective ego would love more than for their cameras to play a role in making the big decisions in games. They'll cream themselves at the the thought that the Premier League title could hinge on a dramatic referral.

[SO16_Saint]

When Sepp was about to announce this idea, bet he thought "this will be a universally good idea, and everyone will love it... and me"

 

Well Sepp me old mucker - look at the above 32 posts and see how divisive the idea is

[Whitey Grandad]

Television is a lot more accurate than an individual running with a flag, trying to look at two places at once (where the ball is played from and where the intended receiver is at that exact moment).

 

No it isn't. The official on the line is in the best place in the stadium and is always level with the second-last defender. The TV angle is very rarely perpendicular to the line and is not detailed enough to see every part of the players' bodies.

[Goatboy]

I wish Sepp would review his decision to stand for election again.

[Whitey Grandad]

I was discussing this very point over lunch. My thoughts are that you can see whether there was a handball or not, but that there would still be interpretation by the official. Managers would just have to accept that. At least they had a chance to look at it.

 

As for your point about offside, I'm afraid I don't get that at all. Offside is one of the easiest things to see with TV replay.

 

Most comments on offside that I have seen have been completely wrong. There have been the odd couple of obvious errors but in most cases the official has made the correct decision. The line that they draw is just an estimate and no more accurate than standing there and judging yourself, at least you're level with the second-last defender and can judge whether any part if the attacker (excluding the arms) is nearer the goal. Even then there's an element if judgment as to whether they are interfering or so on in any way.

[syd_barrett_saint]

No it isn't. The official on the line is in the best place in the stadium and is always level with the second-last defender. The TV angle is very rarely perpendicular to the line and is not detailed enough to see every part of the players' bodies.

I'm surprised you're using the Internet with that kind of antiquated attitude.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm surprised you're using the Internet with that kind of antiquated attitude.

 

Your blind faith in technology is more disturbing. If you knew every imaging process that took place before you see the final 2D image then you might be more reluctant to embrace it. The camera always lies.

[Goatboy]

Your blind faith in technology is more disturbing. If you knew every imaging process that took place before you see the final 2D image then you might be more reluctant to embrace it. The camera always lies.

 

So do the eyes and brain.

[Goatboy]

Most comments on offside that I have seen have been completely wrong. There have been the odd couple of obvious errors but in most cases the official has made the correct decision. The line that they draw is just an estimate and no more accurate than standing there and judging yourself, at least you're level with the second-last defender and can judge whether any part if the attacker (excluding the arms) is nearer the goal. Even then there's an element if judgment as to whether they are interfering or so on in any way.

 

The main difference as I see it though Whitey is that a tv replay can stop the offside line at exactly the point that the ball is played forward. Unless the lino has the swivel eyes of Saint Richmond it will be impossible to achieve this in real time.

[syd_barrett_saint]

Your blind faith in technology is more disturbing. If you knew every imaging process that took place before you see the final 2D image then you might be more reluctant to embrace it. The camera always lies.

 

The camera is lying here then?:

 

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkdZ4NNCMAEQBLq.jpg

 

Or was the linesman really correct and David Silva was onside after all?

[Whitey Grandad]

The camera is lying here then?:

 

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkdZ4NNCMAEQBLq.jpg

 

Or was the linesman really correct and David Silva was onside after all?

 

That was an obvious mistake and I referred to this rare type of instance (might be on the other thread). Surely we're not talking about introducing this system for a once-a-season instance?

[Whitey Grandad]

The main difference as I see it though Whitey is that a tv replay can stop the offside line at exactly the point that the ball is played forward. Unless the lino has the swivel eyes of Saint Richmond it will be impossible to achieve this in real time.

 

But the line isn't accurate, and it should be a vertical plane, not a line. Running the line is a very specialised job which requires a lot of practice and it's not until you've tried it that you appreciate what's involved.

[Goatboy]

That was an obvious mistake and I referred to this rare type of instance (might be on the other thread). Surely we're not talking about introducing this system for a once-a-season instance?

 

I would say an offside error occurs more frequently than a ball over the line error and goal line technology was given the green light.

[Saint Pete]

Reply;

1) "dominates the sport?....thank goodness we have it....I don't get to SMS nearly as often as I'd like to. TV coverage of a game shows a lot of action / replays, though not the atmosphere sadly.

 

2) for review....I mean " review ". I feel more satisfied when I can see if a player was offside, was " really " fouled, or IF a goal was in or not.

 

3) Pelle off side? . Admitedly, it looked close but the TV commentator (s) on my channel were fairly convinced he wasn't.

 

SWEDEN : Bit of rain about in Stockholm, but clearer weather on the way Wed. / Thursday. 20 deg.+

 

Your comment on the Pelle off side demonstrates the problem with using a review system in football. Often you can look at TV replays of offsides and penalty decisions over and over again and people will still come to different conclusions over what is the correct decision.

[The9]

......and about ****ing time !

 

This has been a sore point with me and millions of fans who watch a game (especially on TV) and see "perfectly good goals " ...disallowed or not even given....because of some refereeing error.

IMO.. There are few things that irk more than seeing goals disallowed / not allowed when miiions of people see the real situation and the ref.(s) have missed it.

 

This type of TV replay has been in many sports for decades past - at last Football will be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century now that we have the technology to give us the correct answer.

 

In an attempt to placate his many critics, (and just before his attempt to be re-elected as FIFA boss for yet another term), Sepp Blatter has stated that "trials will take place in the coming season giving managers / coaches the right to an " appeal against a wrong decision " to be decided by the match officials to see if the appeal is correct or not.

 

The highly embarrasing miss in the 2010 World Cup when Frank Lampards "goal " was disallowed when it clearly crossed the line (before the German keeper retrieved it) was a prime example.

The introduction of goal-line cameras has gone someway to solving the problem, but far more serious incidents occur in games every week that don't just rely on the ball crossing the line, or not.

 

Saints have already been a victim of the antiquated system that presently exists when Graziano Pellé recently had a "good goal " wrongly ruled out for offside. I saw it and so did everyone else who watched the game on TV. Fortunately-on this occasion -it didn't affect the final result, but many times before such occurances have cost teams points and sometimes even losing the match.

 

Let's hope that in future we can see proper results coming from the use of modern technology and not an unsighted match official.

 

Of course it can work against us as well, but I'd prefer to see a correct decision everytime - even if it does go against us occasionally. At least the truth will prevail.

 

I'm completely against it for the same reason I'm completely against all technology involved in refereeing decisions - because it's not available at all levels.

 

I can't argue that goalline tech (and to a lesser extent vanishing spray) has been a huge success, and I guess I should just accept that at some point we're going to go down the road of video reviews which the fans can't see and thus create more controversy not less, whilst probably being more accurate overall, though slowing the game in some instances.

 

I'd also point out that if this was in place, Saints wouldn't have scored more goals in that match. Ramirez's header wouldn't have led to the wrongly-awarded corner Saints scored from. Or would it? That's all assuming that Allardyce used his review for that corner decision and Koeman used ours for the offside - this system wouldn't even have guaranteed those decisions would be challenged, and might have remained wrong.

 

The arbitrary nature of this "one" challenge means you could get a situation where a goal is wrongly awarded but there's no challenge left, you might even get a situation where there are two possible fouls in an incident leading to a goal and only one can be overturned by challenge, which is fundamentally less fair than the independent arbiter(s) making a genuine error which could have happened to either side.

[Golden Balls]

I'm not totally against this but not sure how it would work.

 

Goal line technology works because it's simple. It's either over the line or it's not.

 

So which decisions can a manager review? How many reviews can he get? If it's 2 and the manage has used 2 appeals then a 3rd referee error leads to losing the title, surely nothing has been achieved?

 

Does the manager get to look at a monitor before deciding to appeal? Seems unfair if so. Yet he can be given info in seconds.

 

If it's offsides. That's reasonably simple when an offside isn't given and the decision can be reversed. But what about when the lino flags when Costa is through 1-on-1 to win the title. A review shows he was onside, how do you restart the game fairly to give him the advantage back?

 

Handballs? Yes it can show it hit the hand but how can technology show if it's intentional?

 

And then there is the flow of the game. Seems the opinion is a review can take place at a "natural break in play". What if the ball doesn't go out for 10 minutes then a player goes in 2 footed and breaks an opponents leg? Then they go back to the review from 10 minutes earlier and realise a mistake was made. Do they reverse the clock and not send the player off?

 

What constitutes a decision worthy of a review? A throw in can be an important decision if you have Rory Delap in your team.

 

How long do you have to make an appeal? I'm sure big Sam would have heard a few seconds after Morgans 2nd goal that it should never have been our corner. Can he go back? If not, why not? I mean the decision leading to the goal was wrong.

 

A big part of football that I love is the debate. I would say this would take away that element but I can see it leading to even more controversy.

[The9]

Don't agree David mate. TV dominates the sport too much already. When people say that they want a review then what they are really saying is that they want the decision changed. Pellè was actually offside.

 

 

No he wasn't. He was level with the last West Ham defender who was immediately in front of him - but there were two Saints players in offside positions (though not interfering) who blocked the lino's view of the incident altogether.

[The9]

Your comment on the Pelle off side demonstrates the problem with using a review system in football. Often you can look at TV replays of offsides and penalty decisions over and over again and people will still come to different conclusions over what is the correct decision.

 

The "problem" is that some people see "not offside", don't know the laws of the game, or miss something glaringly obvious, and still come to the wrong conclusion. Mostly, that isn't the case with the officials (though I will admit to having stand up rows on the pitch with the refs when they don't know the laws... in parks matches) .

[The9]

No it isn't. The official on the line is in the best place in the stadium and is always level with the second-last defender. The TV angle is very rarely perpendicular to the line and is not detailed enough to see every part of the players' bodies.

 

He is if he's actually IN line to judge, and not out of breath, or changing direction, or his view isn't obscured, and if he's actually looking at the right place, at the right time.

 

There are plenty of arguments against the introduction of technology, but I'm pretty sure "it's not as good as a person doing it" isn't one of them. In fact, just as images get captured and manipulated, it's impossible for a human to accurately judge when a ball is passed due to speed of light and sound considerations (and of course it's atomically impossible for anyone to be "level" as well, but anyway, Science).

[The9]

But the line isn't accurate, and it should be a vertical plane, not a line. Running the line is a very specialised job which requires a lot of practice and it's not until you've tried it that you appreciate what's involved.

 

It's bloody easy if you're fit enough to keep up with the last defender, unless you don't concentrate or don't know what you're doing. I will accept that giving offside calls after a 40 yard pass from a ball right on the touchline on your side of the pitch is more difficult than it looks (in fact, impossible), but the general job isn't that hard.

[The9]

One thing that does annoy me though (slightly contradicting my last point!), commentators saying strikers who are "looking along the line" shouldn't be offside.

 

If you're in the middle of the pitch with defenders around you it is much easier to determine if you're offside than if you're out on the wing, when any calculation involves a calculation involving an arbitrary vertical plane running parallel to a vanishing point in line with the goalline or edge of the box and probably only one nearby defender to check your position against... whilst you're running and considering how to control the ball.

 

So in conclusion, running the line is easy, running the wing isn't. Which must be down to not having to think about controlling the ball or beating the offside trap too.

[Saxon]

With regards to the number of decisions, SB referenced tennis. What he didn't reference was how the tennis challenges work, and I think that is how it should be done. Maybe something like 3 challenges for the whole, match, not per half,and then if you challenge and the decision is changed, you keep the challenge, if it remains the same and your call was wrong, then you lose a challenge. That way you have to think about if its really important and if you're really sure you're correct, and it also means if there's a freakish string of incorrect decisions, if you correctly challenge them they are all accounted for, you don't run out of challenges. It should pretty much just work like tennis in the number of challenges respect.

[scotty]

The problem is that it will just end up as another tactical manouvre, like substitutions. If a team have suddenly got the wind in their sails and look like scoring, just pull a challenge and stop the flow of the game. Its like subbing a player late on for no reason other than to kill time, but far more useful as it could be deployed at any time for 90 minutes without sacrificing a sub.

[Sour Mash]

The problem is that it will just end up as another tactical manouvre, like substitutions. If a team have suddenly got the wind in their sails and look like scoring, just pull a challenge and stop the flow of the game. Its like subbing a player late on for no reason other than to kill time, but far more useful as it could be deployed at any time for 90 minutes without sacrificing a sub.

Exactly. There isn't a proposed system that works for anyone that has actually thought about this at all.

[sussexsaint]

It can takes ages to review a decision, 5 or 10mins easily, so that would kill the game. And there are plenty of decisions that are still very much up for debate even when watching video replays.

 

And at what point would you stop play to review the decision and who's choice would the review/challenge be at?

 

It really shouldn't take 5 minutes, when watching a game on TV the pundits often decide if it was on or off side etc within seconds by simply running the VT back a bit.

 

No reason why that couldn't be done and radioed to the ref

 

Instead of making it the appeal of the teams perhaps it should be the ref that asks for a rerun ? Pauses, hold up his hand and gets a 5th official to give his opinion based on watching VT

 

Too much rides on results not to get it right

[hutch]

Why have we decided it will be up to the teams to decide if and when to call for video assistance?

[Sour Mash]

It really shouldn't take 5 minutes, when watching a game on TV the pundits often decide if it was on or off side etc within seconds by simply running the VT back a bit.

 

No reason why that couldn't be done and radioed to the ref

 

Instead of making it the appeal of the teams perhaps it should be the ref that asks for a rerun ? Pauses, hold up his hand and gets a 5th official to give his opinion based on watching VT

 

Too much rides on results not to get it right

So you'd only use it for offside? And only for goals scored from offside positions, not cases where a player was through, onside, but the linesman incorrectly flags? Plenty of time it takes a few minutes at the least, rerun at different angles, slowed down and still not 100% clear. It wouldn't work. And at what point would the ref blow to stop play?

[Sour Mash]

Why have we decided it will be up to the teams to decide if and when to call for video assistance?

We haven't "decided" that, it was just a suggestion that was put up.

 

At what point would you have play stopped?

[buctootim]

I don't watch Rugby so cant say whether this Telegraph piece about the downside to refs using video technology to make a decision is accurate or not. Food for thought tho.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jackrivlin/100011361/rugby-at-twickenham-thanks-to-video-technology-referees-are-too-scared-to-do-their-job/

[Gemmel]

Exactly. There isn't a proposed system that works for anyone that has actually thought about this at all.

 

The one I heard muted was this (This is from memory, so it might not be completely correct but was an idea from either FA, UEFA or FIFA)

 

Each club with have the right to three appeals a match, that either through the 4th official or the use of a coloured board to notify the referee. Between that first request and the stop in play (Ball might already be out in many circumstances or moving up for a restart following a goal) the 4th official would have probably seen a replay 2 or 3 times (You can sometimes see them (Mangers and players) these days crowding round a small camera almost instantly that they want a replay. The fourth official makes his recommendation to the referee, the ref then watches once and makes his final decision.

 

If a video appeal is successful (As in ref got it wrong and the club were right to challenge) they don't lose one of their challenges.

[Sour Mash]

The one I heard muted was this (This is from memory, so it might not be completely correct but was an idea from either FA, UEFA or FIFA)

 

Each club with have the right to three appeals a match, that either through the 4th official or the use of a coloured board to notify the referee. Between that first request and the stop in play (Ball might already be out in many circumstances or moving up for a restart following a goal) the 4th official would have probably seen a replay 2 or 3 times (You can sometimes see them (Mangers and players) these days crowding round a small camera almost instantly that they want a replay. The fourth official makes his recommendation to the referee, the ref then watches once and makes his final decision.

 

If a video appeal is successful (As in ref got it wrong and the club were right to challenge) they don't lose one of their challenges.

Exactly. No workable solution proposed.

[Gemmel]

Exactly. No workable solution proposed.

 

First off I should correct my original post to that it was a proposal to one of the footballing bodies - Not a suggestion by them.

 

What makes it an unworkable solution

[Sour Mash]

First off I should correct my original post to that it was a proposal to one of the footballing bodies - Not a suggestion by them.

 

What makes it an unworkable solution

At what point would play be stopped?

[Whitey Grandad]

No he wasn't. He was level with the last West Ham defender who was immediately in front of him - but there were two Saints players in offside positions (though not interfering) who blocked the lino's view of the incident altogether.

 

There's no such thing as level. He was comfortably nearer the goal than the defender. This is not athletics or horse racing, 'any part' of his body (except arms) is enough, not just the chest.

[Gemmel]

At what point would play be stopped?

 

At the same point play is stopped now when the referee is notified of something that requires him to stop it.

 

He will be miked up to the fourth official (I'm just assuming this bit) so whilst the "Challenging" club would have to make a split decision, the reality is that the stop in play would be almost instant. The other point is that there are mostly only ever 2 or 3 big calls in a game.....and just like for us fans we scream for the "penalty" or the "offside" instantly / in real time, so there is no reason why the Clubs couldn't.

 

I am sure it would be open to abuse, for time wasting etc., but perhaps there are other rules that could be applied to minimise it.

[david in sweden]

Firstly, apologies to those who see this thread as double...after re-reading it, I decided to re-word it to clarify the original text and inadvertantly duplicated it.

However, I didn't expect so much reaction to the OP, but as both threads seem to be proceeding in different directions, and they haven't been consolidated .. I'll procede.

 

Most people against ...seem to feel it break the flow of the game to the detriment of the attacking side. But time-wasting (if you call it that) ..occurs throughout most games anyway.

examples: goal-kicks that " seem to take a lifetime " , likewise some throw-ins, and corners and especially some free-kicks. In the past, I have timed interruptions in many games and noted that;

A throw-in often takes upto 20 secs. (sometimes more). A corner kick can take up (average. 45 secs) and free kicks considerably longer than that, from the time of stoppage to the ball being back in play.

If you don't believe me, try timing these things yourself over a period of time. Think about that in a game with a lot of corner kicks, or dozens of free-kicks.

 

Let's not forget that some " injuries " are little more than a harmless knock or someone simply out of breath. Some foreign sides are experts at using this tactic, and it takes even more time out of the game.

It's not exclusive to overseas players, but with so many foreign players in our League(s), it has (sadly) become a trend.

The Football administrators have already " built-in " an extra 30 secs. (for each substitution in a game - hence the almost standard 3 mins. added time in many games.)

Making a sub. in the final minutes is a standard way of taking the momentum out of an attacking side trying for a winning goal - and managers know that.

 

It's difficult to gauge (from Blatter's interview) exactly how he thinks this should work. There are certainly no clear-cut rules as yet - except (he said)

..the appeal (one allowed in each half) will take place AFTER the game has stopped, (presumably after a hand ball / penalty appeal, or " offside goal ") - as the present goal-line technology already deals with cases of the ball actually crossing the line. He also said that it could only work in games that were televised. This seems to be a problem for those who feel that is unfair on others, but no-one can surely expect games played at Millbrook Rec. to be placed on a par with a vital Prem. game or a World Cup qualifier.

 

Of course, it won't be a perfect system and (as now)... the ref. may decide to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but IMO anything that improves the honesty of the final result has to be a good thing.

and it may encourage TV to make more games available, but anything that can clarify a vital moment must be an advantage to fair play. It does in many other sports (even fast moving ones like Ice-hockey)

 

If the goal-line cameras can give a response within seconds, then a review of an offside situation can come equally as quickly.... (I watch many games on TV and it doesn't take so long).

Edited 9 September, 2014 by david in sweden

[Sour Mash]

At the same point play is stopped now when the referee is notified of something that requires him to stop it.

 

He will be miked up to the fourth official (I'm just assuming this bit) so whilst the "Challenging" club would have to make a split decision, the reality is that the stop in play would be almost instant. The other point is that there are mostly only ever 2 or 3 big calls in a game.....and just like for us fans we scream for the "penalty" or the "offside" instantly / in real time, so there is no reason why the Clubs couldn't.

 

I am sure it would be open to abuse, for time wasting etc., but perhaps there are other rules that could be applied to minimise it.

So if the referee doesn't stop play, doesn't give the decision, the system won't be used? So a large percentage of wrong decisions won't be affected by the rule.

[david in sweden]

There's no such thing as level. He was comfortably nearer the goal than the defender. This is not athletics or horse racing, 'any part' of his body (except arms) is enough, not just the chest.

 

....but (Whitey)....you are remembering that it's the player's standing position - when the ball is kicked - and not where he is when he receives it.

 

Thankfully now, players who are not involved in the play can be standing in an offside position, as long as they are deemed not to be interfering with play.

.....(although exceptions can be: (for example) ...deliberately unsighting the goalkeeper).

 

The parts of the body (that maybe offside have been stated)...like "handball" has to be deliberate hand-to-ball and not ball-to-hand, likewise the shoulder is not considered offside, but the upper arm is.

[david in sweden]

So if the referee doesn't stop play, doesn't give the decision, the system won't be used? So a large percentage of wrong decisions won't be affected by the rule.

 

I think referees will surely use their discretion, as now after a foul is committed (and he plays the advantage rule), he can go back after that play has finished.... and yellow-card the offender.

In previous years, he'd stop the game to consult a linesman (sorry:blush: assistant ref.) ..now they are linked electronically and decisions come quicker, as does his " button " - signifying a goal over the line ".

 

Appeals surely won't solve all the problems, but anything that prevents someone " not-winning " a title game / Cup match, or perhaps avoiding relegation in a vital match, must surely be a positive thing?

Edited 9 September, 2014 by david in sweden

[Gemmel]

So if the referee doesn't stop play, doesn't give the decision, the system won't be used? So a large percentage of wrong decisions won't be affected by the rule.

 

No the referee wouldn't stop play - That would be the shout from the dug out and the referee would be informed - 3 to 5 seconds max. Although I would assume that the referees would also have the ability to stop play on occasions when they are "Unsure" and likely to utilise that power, knowing that a "Bench" could and the ref then proved wrong.

 

The ultimate decision remains with the referee, the example I repeated would naturally give the fourth official more time to review before the ref came over to see the replay himself and would be in a position to "advise" - Think Thierry Henry against Ireland.

 

So a large percentage of wrong decisions won't be affected by the rule - Absolutely correct, this isn't to address silly free kicks, handballs, throw ins, corners etc. It is to ensure game changing decisions are correct.

 

I absolutely get that it is open to abuse and far from flawless and I only posted it as at the time I read about it, it seemed the most practical solution. I have some questions relating to strikers flagged offside that then prove not be - How is that rectified or does play continue until such time as whether a review is required on not (That would kepp a few defenders on their toes :) )

 

But all in all for me, I think the time has come and it should be introduced.......and I actually think it would make things MORE exciting. But I can see I am in the minority here - But then football is all about opinions.

[rallyboy]

Valid point about who calls the 'challenge'....

 

Incident occurs, players kick up fuss, play continues.

Ref carries on reffing the game but asks 4th official if something happened that he missed for whatever reason, it may even be a specific question as in Rugby League - 'did no.5 get the ball?'.... 20 secs later he gets info and makes decision.

The players and crowd know it may well be being reviewed and will feel some further justice is being determined, even if original decision stands.

 

This means that the refereeing team retains power and control, no manager can halt the game for any reason.

It might reduce the number of ridiculous mistakes that have crept in - that and a bit of consistency and explanation would go a long way.

 

It's a difficult job and no one is perfect, but some of the mistakes we see are not the work of professionals who have been trained correctly.

Any help that can be given to them should be.

At the moment they are being hung out to dry, and they can't even explain why they made a decision, sharper fans will note that he was unsighted or it was a very tight call, others will just vilify.

 

There is no simple answer, but we certainly don't want a complicated one.

Leave power with the ref, and give him more tools.

[Sour Mash]

No the referee wouldn't stop play - That would be the shout from the dug out and the referee would be informed - 3 to 5 seconds max. Although I would assume that the referees would also have the ability to stop play on occasions when they are "Unsure" and likely to utilise that power, knowing that a "Bench" could and the ref then proved wrong.

 

The ultimate decision remains with the referee, the example I repeated would naturally give the fourth official more time to review before the ref came over to see the replay himself and would be in a position to "advise" - Think Thierry Henry against Ireland.

 

So a large percentage of wrong decisions won't be affected by the rule - Absolutely correct, this isn't to address silly free kicks, handballs, throw ins, corners etc. It is to ensure game changing decisions are correct.

 

I absolutely get that it is open to abuse and far from flawless and I only posted it as at the time I read about it, it seemed the most practical solution. I have some questions relating to strikers flagged offside that then prove not be - How is that rectified or does play continue until such time as whether a review is required on not (That would kepp a few defenders on their toes :) )

 

But all in all for me, I think the time has come and it should be introduced.......and I actually think it would make things MORE exciting. But I can see I am in the minority here - But then football is all about opinions.

Hold on, let me get this straight - you are suggesting a system, where a team can be 1-0 up in the FA Cup final, 91st minute and attacking, they lose the ball and the opposition break very quickly and look like they could be clear through - the team 1-0 up are able to use one of their remaining "appeals" and have the game stopped/brought back, while it is "reviewed". All their players get back in position, have a good breather and are ready to see out their 1-0 win. It doesn't work.

[Sour Mash]

Valid point about who calls the 'challenge'....

 

Incident occurs, players kick up fuss, play continues.

Ref carries on reffing the game but asks 4th official if something happened that he missed for whatever reason, it may even be a specific question as in Rugby League - 'did no.5 get the ball?'.... 20 secs later he gets info and makes decision.

The players and crowd know it may well be being reviewed and will feel some further justice is being determined, even if original decision stands.

 

This means that the refereeing team retains power and control, no manager can halt the game for any reason.

It might reduce the number of ridiculous mistakes that have crept in - that and a bit of consistency and explanation would go a long way.

 

It's a difficult job and no one is perfect, but some of the mistakes we see are not the work of professionals who have been trained correctly.

Any help that can be given to them should be.

At the moment they are being hung out to dry, and they can't even explain why they made a decision, sharper fans will note that he was unsighted or it was a very tight call, others will just vilify.

 

There is no simple answer, but we certainly don't want a complicated one.

Leave power with the ref, and give him more tools.

There really aren't many "ridiculous mistakes" are there? The vast, vast majority of officials seem well trained professionals to me.

[Gemmel]

Hold on, let me get this straight - you are suggesting a system, where a team can be 1-0 up in the FA Cup final, 91st minute and attacking, they lose the ball and the opposition break very quickly and look like they could be clear through - the team 1-0 up are able to use one of their remaining "appeals" and have the game stopped/brought back, while it is "reviewed". All their players get back in position, have a good breather and are ready to see out their 1-0 win. It doesn't work.

 

No that is not what I am suggesting at all - Where on earth did you get that from?

 

But lets go with your scenario (And it's the team attacking that I don't know how the proposal would work)

 

So today the team winning 1 - 0 who lose the ball and are now defending get a wrong offside flag in their favour. The striker was clean through on goal but the ref blows up and they win the FA Cup (Through the injustice of a poor decision) - Your scenario is ultimately what technology is there to prevent. People talk about "Swings and roundabouts" "Evening itself etc. But this is the FA cup, this is a clubs history at stake, this is a year of European football the following year and World recognition.

 

Now as I have already said, I have no idea how it would work in from the attacking perspective from offside, outside of a real change in culture and mind shift, that play carries on (even when the linesman flag is raised) until the ball is dead (Either a goal or miss) and whilst I am sure this would be a far to big step when introducing technology...... It comes back to the fact that in your scenario, without technology the wrong team would have unjustly won the FA cup and with technology, things would be fairer......and you have to say much more exciting.

[The9]

Why have we decided it will be up to the teams to decide if and when to call for video assistance?

 

We haven't, Sepp has, and he's better than us.

[Sour Mash]

No that is not what I am suggesting at all - Where on earth did you get that from?

 

But lets go with your scenario (And it's the team attacking that I don't know how the proposal would work)

 

So today the team winning 1 - 0 who lose the ball and are now defending get a wrong offside flag in their favour. The striker was clean through on goal but the ref blows up and they win the FA Cup (Through the injustice of a poor decision) - Your scenario is ultimately what technology is there to prevent. People talk about "Swings and roundabouts" "Evening itself etc. But this is the FA cup, this is a clubs history at stake, this is a year of European football the following year and World recognition.

 

Now as I have already said, I have no idea how it would work in from the attacking perspective from offside, outside of a real change in culture and mind shift, that play carries on (even when the linesman flag is raised) until the ball is dead (Either a goal or miss) and whilst I am sure this would be a far to big step when introducing technology...... It comes back to the fact that in your scenario, without technology the wrong team would have unjustly won the FA cup and with technology, things would be fairer......and you have to say much more exciting.

So explain to me what your proposal is then, if I've got it wrong. On that basis you haven't provided a working alternative scenario, just cried that the current system is "unfair".

 

And

[The9]

There's no such thing as level. He was comfortably nearer the goal than the defender. This is not athletics or horse racing, 'any part' of his body (except arms) is enough, not just the chest.

 

In which case you're just wrong, because he wasn't. Maybe you've missed the defender immediately in front of him?

[jamesfp1]

Micro chips in the players boots, computer system knows exactly who is off and on side at all points during the game.

 

Simple!

[The9]

Micro chips in the players boots, computer system knows exactly who is off and on side at all points during the game.

 

Simple!

 

What if there's a diving player whose feet are behind the defender but his head is well past?

 

How do you determine when the ball is kicked?

 

How do you determine whether a player is interfering?

 

What about minor undetected deflections on the ball after the initial kick?

 

And so on.

 

We had the "offside decision" discussion before, it's quite difficult to propose a method of working it out with technology without human interaction, and it's quite difficult even with that. The best one I came up with was the lino having a "someone is offside" indicator which he can have in his line of sight in order to be able to decide if they're also interfering when the ball is played - and even that assumes the wearable tech is at the furthest-forward point of the attacker and furthest-back part of the defender.