Video Technology (Again)

[Lighthouse]

It seems like every week now sh*te refereeing decisions are being discussed on here and in the wider media. This week alone we have the JWP incident, Burnley sending off and an Aguero penalty claim which many would argue the officials got wrong.

 

How hard would it be to have a quiet isolated room somewhere in the stadium with a couple of TV screens and a radio link to the referee? Two officials who can quickly review the last few seconds of footage from different angles and pass the info on to the ref. I don't buy the argument that it would slow the game down at all. I'd say there is a good minute between the foul being committed and the penalty being taken, plenty of time to review the footage.

 

Every other sport does it and we're stuck in the stone age having to accept these daft officiating errors.

 

Also, why don't we stop the clock when the ball is out of play and do away with injury time, like they do in rugby. It would stop players from time wasting by taking ages to take throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, slow substitutions etc. No more Fergie time, just play until bang on 90 minutes then end the game when the ball goes out of play.

[Millbrook Saint]

The problem is a lot of the decisions are down to opinions, they are rarely black and white, even the offside rule which was once black or white, anyone offside then it's offside, now it's up to the ref to decide whether a player is interfering in play, one person might say no and another will say yes.

 

Then you have the ridiculous situation where pundits are saying that a player has the right to go down if he's touched in the box, again you'd end up with one opinion saying no pen look how easily he went down and another saying he got touched so it's a pen.

 

Even handballs in the box, you have pundits saying definitely a penalty and another saying ball to hand, again a personal opinion to be made.

 

Some situations it would help when it is a black and white decision, trouble is the fa have made a rod for their back by introducing 'refs opinion'

[saintalan]

... I'd say there is a good minute between the foul being committed and the penalty being taken, plenty of time to review the footage.

 

...

 

...but what about the reverse where the penalty isnt given and play continues...

[Lighthouse]

...but what about the reverse where the penalty isnt given and play continues...

 

There are a couple of ways of doing it:

 

1. The 'video ref' can review the footage whilst the game continues. If a penalty is awarded, play can be stopped and brought back.

 

2. The captain of each team gets 2 or 3 video penalty appeals per game. If a captain calls for a video review, play stops. Then either a pen or a goal kick is awarded depending on the outcome. If successful that team keeps their 2/3 appeals, if unsuccessful they only have 1/2 left, like in tennis, in order to prevent frivolous appealing.

 

This isn't a flawless system but would prevent some of the silly decisions we see. A video ref may or may not have given the second penalty yesterday but would almost certain not have given the red. Also incidents like the penalty not given to Aguero at St Mary's would be wiped out. Not to mention some incidents which are an utter farce, like the ref sending the wrong player off for West Brom a few weeks ago.

[Sour Mash]

It seems like every week now sh*te refereeing decisions are being discussed on here and in the wider media. This week alone we have the JWP incident, Burnley sending off and an Aguero penalty claim which many would argue the officials got wrong.

 

How hard would it be to have a quiet isolated room somewhere in the stadium with a couple of TV screens and a radio link to the referee? Two officials who can quickly review the last few seconds of footage from different angles and pass the info on to the ref. I don't buy the argument that it would slow the game down at all. I'd say there is a good minute between the foul being committed and the penalty being taken, plenty of time to review the footage.

 

Every other sport does it and we're stuck in the stone age having to accept these daft officiating errors.

 

Also, why don't we stop the clock when the ball is out of play and do away with injury time, like they do in rugby. It would stop players from time wasting by taking ages to take throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, slow substitutions etc. No more Fergie time, just play until bang on 90 minutes then end the game when the ball goes out of play.

As explained so many times, video technology would not work for football, the flow of the game is different to other sports. Thankfully those running the game can see that and chose not to ruin it.

 

If the clock was stopped every time the ball went out of play, games would take two hours. Another idea that thankfully won't happen.

[stevegrant]

If the clock was stopped every time the ball went out of play, games would take two hours. Another idea that thankfully won't happen.

Agreed, but I think there's merit in ensuring that there is a minimum "in-play" time. That would ensure the absolutely ludicrous time-wasting we see from so many teams these days only has the effect of stopping the flow of the game rather than actually taking time out.

 

While you're never going to get 90 minutes of actual play, there's no reason why they couldn't take the average "ball in play" time from games over the last, say, 5 years, which I'd guess is around the 60 minute mark and ensure that at least that amount is played. The fourth official would have easy access to the actual amount of time played in that half, and if West Brom had managed to take 2 minutes for every throw-in again, and as a result the ball had only been in play for 21 minutes in that half, the fourth official would automatically add on 9 minutes.

[Lighthouse]

How is the flow different exactly? I can pause and rewind a game 5 seconds instantly just using sky plus. Why can an a video ref not do exactly the same but with a couple of screens showing different camera angles and say, 'pen/no pen/offside/redcard' etc.

 

Stopping the clock in rugby seems to work well enough and they have 80 minute games with plenty of stoppages. They also don't have players rolling around on the floor, demanding a physio and some magic spray to try and waste time when they are winning. If the clock is stopped that doesn't happen. I find it odd that you are happy enough watching this but feel video replays would disrupt the flow of the game.

 

There is no reason why games have to be 90 minutes. We could have 80 minute games too but without including all the time wasted kicking the ball away or 30 seconds of waving at your team mates before taking a throw in.

Edited 4 May, 2015 by Lighthouse

[Sour Mash]

How is the flow different exactly? I can pause and rewind a game 5 seconds instantly just using sky plus. Why can an a video ref not do exactly the same but with a couple of screens showing different camera angles and say, 'pen/no pen/offside/redcard' etc.

 

Stopping the clock in rugby seems to work well enough and they have 80 minute games with plenty of stoppages. They also don't have players rolling around on the floor, demanding a physio and some magic spray to try and waste time when they are winning. If the clock is stopped that doesn't happen. I find it odd that you are happy enough watching this but feel video replays would disrupt the flow of the game.

 

There is no reason why games have to be 90 minutes. We could have 80 minute games too but without including all the time wasted kicking the ball away or 30 seconds of waving at your team mates before taking a throw in.

At what point would you stop play to make a "video ref" decision?

 

Players would still roll around on the floor and get a physio on when defending a lead even if the clock was stopped, it breaks up play, gives their defence a breather, encouraes the ref to book the opposition player. If you stopped the clock every time the game wasn'tlive you'd have 20mins added time for some games, never going to happen.

[Sour Mash]

Agreed, but I think there's merit in ensuring that there is a minimum "in-play" time. That would ensure the absolutely ludicrous time-wasting we see from so many teams these days only has the effect of stopping the flow of the game rather than actually taking time out.

 

While you're never going to get 90 minutes of actual play, there's no reason why they couldn't take the average "ball in play" time from games over the last, say, 5 years, which I'd guess is around the 60 minute mark and ensure that at least that amount is played. The fourth official would have easy access to the actual amount of time played in that half, and if West Brom had managed to take 2 minutes for every throw-in again, and as a result the ball had only been in play for 21 minutes in that half, the fourth official would automatically add on 9 minutes.

But if there was a minimum "in play" time, then players would still know that as long as that's achieved they can still time waste. Better if refs actually booked players more often that are clearly time wasting.

[Whitey Grandad]

No, no and thrice no. What do you want, a committee to decide on every decision? Why not go the whole hog and have a telephone vote or something on Twitter?

 

These pundits have to fill the airtime with something and penalty decisions are an easy target. If you're going to examine penalties and offsides then you also have to examine every other decision in the same game.

[Lighthouse]

At what point would you stop play to make a "video ref" decision?

 

Players would still roll around on the floor and get a physio on when defending a lead even if the clock was stopped, it breaks up play, gives their defence a breather, encouraes the ref to book the opposition player. If you stopped the clock every time the game wasn'tlive you'd have 20mins added time for some games, never going to happen.

 

Give the captain about 5 seconds to get the ref's attention and call for a video replay. At that point play stops whilst the video footage is reviewed. 30 seconds later it's either a penalty or a goal kick. How is this complicated?

 

If we're doing games by actual in play time, we would have to look at an average in play time for a given sample of games and base it around that. Make each half 35 or 40 minutes of 'live ball time' at a rough guess.

 

We would still have some play acting if players wanted to break up the game but how many times have we seen a player lying on the floor for 2 minutes, only for the ref to add about 20 seconds of injury time at the end. If Man Utd are 1-0 up against Arsenal at OT and there are 3 minutes of injury time; Juan Mata goes down in a heap and needs 2 minutes of physio, is the ref really going to play 5 minutes of injury time with 70,000 people screaming at him?

[Lighthouse]

No, no and thrice no. What do you want, a committee to decide on every decision? Why not go the whole hog and have a telephone vote or something on Twitter?

 

These pundits have to fill the airtime with something and penalty decisions are an easy target. If you're going to examine penalties and offsides then you also have to examine every other decision in the same game.

 

1. Er no, I never said that

2. Er, no I never said that

3. Er, no I never said that

[Whitey Grandad]

1. Er no, I never said that

2. Er, no I never said that

3. Er, no I never said that

 

Apart from 1. where we are talking about some remote group reviewing the decision.

 

I didn't say that you had suggested the others, just pointing out the logical extension of the argument.

 

What the proponents of video reviews are basically saying is that they don't like the decision and they want somebody else to look at it.

[igsey]

1. Er no, I never said that

2. Er, no I never said that

3. Er, no I never said that

 

There's a fairly obvious clue in his username as to why he's so against video tech. Strangely enough, I seem to remember a lot of posters on here saying similar things about goal line technology. What a disaster that's been, right?

[Lighthouse]

Apart from 1. where we are talking about some remote group reviewing the decision.

 

I didn't say that you had suggested the others, just pointing out the logical extension of the argument.

 

What the proponents of video reviews are basically saying is that they don't like the decision and they want somebody else to look at it.

 

It's not a logical extension of anything. Two guys to quickly look at the footage (in case one of them misses something on the video) and send a radio message to the referee. If the two of them can't agree, the ref's original decision stands.

 

Nobody is suggesting we review every foul, throw in etc. Just contentious issues on which games are decided. Nobody ever lost a game because a throw in was incorrectly given but the pen. and red card on Saturday was a turning point in the game.

 

I'm not sure I get your last sentence. Did you like that JWP was sent off on Sunday? Was it the correct decision because the referee said so?

[simo]

With the amount of money riding on decisions it's inevitable TV reviews will appear at some point in the future imo!

[John Boy Saint]

No, no and thrice no. What do you want, a committee to decide on every decision? Why not go the whole hog and have a telephone vote or something on Twitter?

 

These pundits have to fill the airtime with something and penalty decisions are an easy target. If you're going to examine penalties and offsides then you also have to examine every other decision in the same game.

Simples every seat in the ground has a key pad like when it's ask the audience on who wants to be a millionaire, with buttons in-out-foul-no foul- red - yellow - handball. Seems pretty straight forwards to me everyone's a winner.................

[Lighthouse]

There's a fairly obvious clue in his username as to why he's so against video tech. Strangely enough, I seem to remember a lot of posters on here saying similar things about goal line technology. What a disaster that's been, right?

 

It's why I refuse to go to games these days. Just not a world I want to live in.

[Sour Mash]

Give the captain about 5 seconds to get the ref's attention and call for a video replay. At that point play stops whilst the video footage is reviewed. 30 seconds later it's either a penalty or a goal kick. How is this complicated?

But what's your serious proposal? Edited 4 May, 2015 by Sour Mash

[Sour Mash]

There's a fairly obvious clue in his username as to why he's so against video tech. Strangely enough, I seem to remember a lot of posters on here saying similar things about goal line technology. What a disaster that's been, right?

That's weird, why would there be similar arguments about a completely different process.

[the saint in winchester]

It wouldn't be hard to bring it in and yes, I would do it. A referee has to refer it to a TV assistant linesman. Said person can also flag it up to the ref through his earpiece where he can - "ref, it was OUTside the area, no penalty".

Of course it would be hard to administer, but it being difficult should not be used as a reason to not even try it.

[sadoldgit]

Put the 4th official in a viewing box and give him feeds from drones so that he can constantly update the pitch ref. Not sure what the point of the current 4th official is other than to get the verbals from irate managers.

[Dark Munster]

I agree with all of Mr Lighthouse's remarks. There are a lot of straw man from the naysayers, but there's no reason why this couldn't be done.

 

Well one actually (to play Devil's advocate): this probably could only be afforded in the top leagues, so the lower level clubs (such as the Skates) would have to be left to do it the poor man's way without technology.

[Lighthouse]

But what's your serious proposal?

 

You have absolutely no sensible idea why that wouldn't work do you.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's not a logical extension of anything. Two guys to quickly look at the footage (in case one of them misses something on the video) and send a radio message to the referee. If the two of them can't agree, the ref's original decision stands.

 

Nobody is suggesting we review every foul, throw in etc. Just contentious issues on which games are decided. Nobody ever lost a game because a throw in was incorrectly given but the pen. and red card on Saturday was a turning point in the game.

 

I'm not sure I get your last sentence. Did you like that JWP was sent off on Sunday? Was it the correct decision because the referee said so?

 

I didn't like JWP getting a red because it leaves us short of a player for another game, but by no means was the decision obviously incorrect.

 

My point in the last sentence was that often we may not like a decision and hoping for a judicial review is just a refusal to accept the outcome.

[Lighthouse]

Put the 4th official in a viewing box and give him feeds from drones so that he can constantly update the pitch ref. Not sure what the point of the current 4th official is other than to get the verbals from irate managers.

 

They do serve a few functions

 

1. To replace the ref if injured, although there is no reason one of the video refs couldn't do this.

2. To calculate stoppage time and hold up the board. If as I proposed we didn't have stoppage time, this wouldn't be required either.

3. Holding up the flag and board for substitutes. Potentially the managers could have a small buzzer to the refs ear piece for substitutions, then when the ball goes out of play they hold up the board themselves. Just an idea.

 

I'm not personally saying we should do the above but there are ways of making the 4th official surplus to requirements. He does just stand there like a lemon for 90% of the match.

[Sour Mash]

You have absolutely no sensible idea why that wouldn't work do you.

What if the goalkeeper is Captain? How can he make a call to the ref in 5 seconds if it's a penalty shout down the other end? What's to stop them using the appeal in the 92nd minute of a game purely to stop a dangerous attacking break from the opposition?

[Whitey Grandad]

They do serve a few functions

 

1. To replace the ref if injured, although there is no reason one of the video refs couldn't do this.

2. To calculate stoppage time and hold up the board. If as I proposed we didn't have stoppage time, this wouldn't be required either.

3. Holding up the flag and board for substitutes. Potentially the managers could have a small buzzer to the refs ear piece for substitutions, then when the ball goes out of play they hold up the board themselves. Just an idea.

 

I'm not personally saying we should do the above but there are ways of making the 4th official surplus to requirements. He does just stand there like a lemon for 90% of the match.

 

He's there to manage substitutions and the two benches. He may also play a role in disciplinary matters, but plays no other role in officiating the game. Before there was a 4th official the senior linesman would take over but then he would need to be replaced. There was one televised match where Jimmy Hill ran the line as he was a qualified referee at the time.

[Lighthouse]

What if the goalkeeper is Captain? How can he make a call to the ref in 5 seconds if it's a penalty shout down the other end? What's to stop them using the appeal in the 92nd minute of a game purely to stop a dangerous attacking break from the opposition?

 

I never understood making a goalkeeper captain. According to the FA only the captain is permitted to speak to the ref anyway, should he feel the need to appeal against or discus an on the pitch issue. Under the current rules, how can a goalkeeper do that for an incident committed 90 yards away?

 

If you insist on having a GK as a captain then the duty of calling for a video replay could quite easily be given to a designated outfield player. That really isn't complicated.

 

Yes, you could abuse the system but;

 

1. If there is a 5 second rule you aren't going to get very far. That's probably just enough time to win the dubious tackle, control the ball and clear it over the halfway line. It's not like you would be able to stop play for a video replay when the opposition is 10 yards from an open goal.

 

2. There would obviously have to be some common sense on behalf of the ref. If it's blatantly obvious a captain is just time wasting, i.e. there hasn't been anything resembling a dangers challenge or foul in the box then the video ref should be denied. It is pretty obvious when there is a contentious issue and when someone is just trying to stop play.

[TwoPints]

As explained so many times, video technology would not work for football, the flow of the game is different to other sports. Thankfully those running the game can see that and chose not to ruin it.

 

If the clock was stopped every time the ball went out of play, games would take two hours. Another idea that thankfully won't happen.

The pundits just bang on about video technology constantly as it's their TV channels camera's and they can therefore charge for the privilege of using them for this purpose or to give themselves even more power in the game.

[Sour Mash]

I never understood making a goalkeeper captain. According to the FA only the captain is permitted to speak to the ref anyway, should he feel the need to appeal against or discus an on the pitch issue. Under the current rules, how can a goalkeeper do that for an incident committed 90 yards away?

 

If you insist on having a GK as a captain then the duty of calling for a video replay could quite easily be given to a designated outfield player. That really isn't complicated.

 

Yes, you could abuse the system but;

 

1. If there is a 5 second rule you aren't going to get very far. That's probably just enough time to win the dubious tackle, control the ball and clear it over the halfway line. It's not like you would be able to stop play for a video replay when the opposition is 10 yards from an open goal.

 

2. There would obviously have to be some common sense on behalf of the ref. If it's blatantly obvious a captain is just time wasting, i.e. there hasn't been anything resembling a dangers challenge or foul in the box then the video ref should be denied. It is pretty obvious when there is a contentious issue and when someone is just trying to stop play.

So ultimately if the captain is at the other end of the pitch (be they keeper, centre back or striker), they've got to have an idea on what happened and contact the ref within 5 seconds. And if they're close enough to play, they can stop a break away at a key time.

[The Cat]

So ultimately if the captain is at the other end of the pitch (be they keeper, centre back or striker), they've got to have an idea on what happened and contact the ref within 5 seconds. And if they're close enough to play, they can stop a break away at a key time.

 

They could have a special signal they make, like in American football when they throw hose hankies around when there's a foul. A camera trained on the captains at all time would see when they call it. Someone then presses a button and some graphics come on the big screen, a noise plays on the tannoy, ticker tape is released from the stadium roof, dancing girls appear from the tunnel and only then can we have our first replay, sponsored by Gazprom.

 

While we are all waiting for the decision fans could bang on the backboard to hype up the tension. Sammy Saint could trot out and entertain the Family Stand with a thumbs up or down depending on what we want the decision to be. Clubs could sell branded, sponsored, thumbs up or down giant foam hands for us to wave while the video replay ref checks the footage.

 

I can't wait.

[Lighthouse]

So ultimately if the captain is at the other end of the pitch (be they keeper, centre back or striker), they've got to have an idea on what happened and contact the ref within 5 seconds. And if they're close enough to play, they can stop a break away at a key time.

 

If the captain isn't close enough to the incident, one of his team mates could give him a signal to call for a video ref. It would then be up to the captain whether he trusts his team mate and makes the call. If they don't have any idea what happened and don't call for a video ref, how is that in any way different to what happens now?

 

 

We see this kind of thing all the time. Not always that blatant but players are always making cynical fouls to 'take one for the team'. It's not like a video ref would open up a whole new world of cynical cheating.

 

IF you had a penalty claim in injury time AND the opposition won the ball AND launched an immediate counter attack then yes, the video ref could be used to stop play. How often does that happen? I'm willing to bet that in the 5 seconds following most penalty claims the ball is usually cleared for a throw in, or hoofed up the pitch and collected by a defender, or goes out for a corner or a goal kick or is collected by the 'keeper, or kept in play by the attacking player, or controlled by a defending player comfortably within their own half.

 

What you have done is name a very specific set of circumstances, which happen very rarely throughout a season. Apparently you think this occasional situation in which a team is denied a counter attack and a POSSIBLE chance to score, is somehow worse than penalties, red cards and offsides being wrongly given/not given in a number of games every week.

 

If a team uses a video ref call late in the game to stop you from countering (in a highly specific set of circumstances) then tough sh*t. It's by far the lesser of 2 evils, nobody ever lost a game because they were denied the start of a counter attack whilst 60 yards from goal.

Edited 4 May, 2015 by Lighthouse

[Lighthouse]

If there is an obvious counter attack on, there's no reason the ref can't wait until the ball goes out of play before consulting the video ref.

[Sour Mash]

If the captain isn't close enough to the incident, one of his team mates could give him a signal to call for a video ref. It would then be up to the captain whether he trusts his team mate and makes the call. If they don't have any idea what happened and don't call for a video ref, how is that in any way different to what happens now?

 

 

We see this kind of thing all the time. Not always that blatant but players are always making cynical fouls to 'take one for the team'. It's not like a video ref would open up a whole new world of cynical cheating.

 

IF you had a penalty claim in injury time AND the opposition won the ball AND launched an immediate counter attack then yes, the video ref could be used to stop play. How often does that happen? I'm willing to bet that in the 5 seconds following most penalty claims the ball is usually cleared for a throw in, or hoofed up the pitch and collected by a defender, or goes out for a corner or a goal kick or is collected by the 'keeper, or kept in play by the attacking player, or controlled by a defending player comfortably within their own half.

 

What you have done is name a very specific set of circumstances, which happen very rarely throughout a season. Apparently you think this occasional situation in which a team is denied a counter attack and a POSSIBLE chance to score, is somehow worse than penalties, red cards and offsides being wrongly given/not given in a number of games every week.

 

If a team uses a video ref call late in the game to stop you from countering (in a highly specific set of circumstances) then tough sh*t. It's by far the lesser of 2 evils, nobody ever lost a game because they were denied the start of a counter attack whilst 60 yards from goal.

I've actually explained how you haven't suggested a logical, workable process by which the game can be stopped. We haven't even touched upon how long it would take to review the decision and come to a correct decision.

[Sour Mash]

If there is an obvious counter attack on, there's no reason the ref can't wait until the ball goes out of play before consulting the video ref.

But the players have stopped, they've put their appeal in.

 

And what if the next time the ball goes out of play, it's because the opposition have scored.

[Lighthouse]

I've actually explained how you haven't suggested a logical, workable process by which the game can be stopped. We haven't even touched upon how long it would take to review the decision and come to a correct decision.

 

I have you're just ignoring it.

 

If a captain wants to consult the video replay he tells the ref. I'll try and make it even more simple for you

 

Penalties

- The ref blows his whistle. Play stops. the video ref reviews the footage. A decision is made

- If it's a penalty, it's a penalty.

- If it's not a penalty, goal kick is given.

 

Red cards

- If the ref has blown for a foul, the footage is reviewed and a card is awarded/not awarded

- If the ref does not see the foul but an opposing captain appeals, the video ref reviews the footage whilst play continues. If there is a red card offence, it is then relayed to the referee who awards the card at the next break in play.

 

In the rare event of a penalty wrongly not being given and the other team going up the other end and scoring, the penalty appeal is reviewed after the goal. If there is a legitimate appeal for a penalty, the goal is disallowed and the penalty is then taken. It would be disappointing for the other team obviously but at least justice would have been served. I would feel much worse watching MOTD and knowing we should have had a penalty 30 seconds before we conceded a goal.

[Sour Mash]

I have you're just ignoring it.

 

If a captain wants to consult the video replay he tells the ref. I'll try and make it even more simple for you

 

Penalties

- The ref blows his whistle. Play stops. the video ref reviews the footage. A decision is made

- If it's a penalty, it's a penalty.

- If it's not a penalty, goal kick is given.

 

Red cards

- If the ref has blown for a foul, the footage is reviewed and a card is awarded/not awarded

- If the ref does not see the foul but an opposing captain appeals, the video ref reviews the footage whilst play continues. If there is a red card offence, it is then relayed to the referee who awards the card at the next break in play.

 

In the rare event of a penalty wrongly not being given and the other team going up the other end and scoring, the penalty appeal is reviewed after the goal. If there is a legitimate appeal for a penalty, the goal is disallowed and the penalty is then taken. It would be disappointing for the other team obviously but at least justice would have been served. I would feel much worse watching MOTD and knowing we should have had a penalty 30 seconds before we conceded a goal.

The whole thing sounds a farce. Which is why it will thankfully never happen.

[Whitey Grandad]

I have you're just ignoring it.

 

If a captain wants to consult the video replay he tells the ref. I'll try and make it even more simple for you

 

Penalties

- The ref blows his whistle. Play stops. the video ref reviews the footage. A decision is made

- If it's a penalty, it's a penalty.

- If it's not a penalty, goal kick is given.

 

Red cards

- If the ref has blown for a foul, the footage is reviewed and a card is awarded/not awarded

- If the ref does not see the foul but an opposing captain appeals, the video ref reviews the footage whilst play continues. If there is a red card offence, it is then relayed to the referee who awards the card at the next break in play.

 

In the rare event of a penalty wrongly not being given and the other team going up the other end and scoring, the penalty appeal is reviewed after the goal. If there is a legitimate appeal for a penalty, the goal is disallowed and the penalty is then taken. It would be disappointing for the other team obviously but at least justice would have been served. I would feel much worse watching MOTD and knowing we should have had a penalty 30 seconds before we conceded a goal.

 

If it's not a penalty then you can't give a goal kick, that would be unfair to the attackers. You would have to restart the game at the place where play was stopped. Technically it should be a dropped ball.

 

This would never work in practice and what us the point if it all? It would ruin the game.

[Lighthouse]

If it's not a penalty then you can't give a goal kick, that would be unfair to the attackers. You would have to restart the game at the place where play was stopped. Technically it should be a dropped ball.

 

This would never work in practice and what us the point if it all? It would ruin the game.

 

How is it not fair on the attackers, when they are the ones who have called for a video replay?

 

What has a bigger negative impact on a game - a penalty being wrongly given/not given or a team being given a goal kick? Why can you not give a goal kick? It's a pretty minor change in the rules.

 

I've yet to see any legitimate reason from you or mash as to why it wouldn't work. Just a lot of stubbornness and claims of 'it's a farce it wont work.'

[Red]

It seems like every week now sh*te refereeing decisions are being discussed on here and in the wider media. This week alone we have the JWP incident, Burnley sending off and an Aguero penalty claim which many would argue the officials got wrong.

 

How hard would it be to have a quiet isolated room somewhere in the stadium with a couple of TV screens and a radio link to the referee? Two officials who can quickly review the last few seconds of footage from different angles and pass the info on to the ref. I don't buy the argument that it would slow the game down at all. I'd say there is a good minute between the foul being committed and the penalty being taken, plenty of time to review the footage.

 

Every other sport does it and we're stuck in the stone age having to accept these daft officiating errors.

 

Also, why don't we stop the clock when the ball is out of play and do away with injury time, like they do in rugby. It would stop players from time wasting by taking ages to take throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, slow substitutions etc. No more Fergie time, just play until bang on 90 minutes then end the game when the ball goes out of play.

 

It will come sooner or later, as there is just too much money involved in the game for obvious wrong decisions to be tolerated in the long term. Just need a few of the old dinosaurs of the game (like Seb B etc.) to move on.

[Wes Tender]

It will come sooner or later, as there is just too much money involved in the game for obvious wrong decisions to be tolerated in the long term. Just need a few of the old dinosaurs of the game (like Seb B etc.) to move on.

 

It's actually long overdue to come into the game. It is farcical that the glaring errors of referees can be viewed on MOTD and that the remedy to them could be applied within seconds of an incident and that the use of that technology is spurned by the governing body of the game.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's actually long overdue to come into the game. It is farcical that the glaring errors of referees can be viewed on MOTD and that the remedy to them could be applied within seconds of an incident and that the use of that technology is spurned by the governing body of the game.

 

I disagree. What they call errors on MOTD are just their opinions which happen to be different from those of the referees. They have to fill their airtime with something so they try to manufacture some sort of controversy or debate. These opinions that they offer are very often wrong.

[Wes Tender]

I disagree. What they call errors on MOTD are just their opinions which happen to be different from those of the referees. They have to fill their airtime with something so they try to manufacture some sort of controversy or debate. These opinions that they offer are very often wrong.

 

They see the video replay from various angles and make a decision on it. It may be that as they are not experts, they are prone for making the wrong decision, whereas of course, a professional refereee who viewed the replay would invariably be able to make the right one. The referee on the pitch is not able to see everything, so often makes the wrong decision. Meanwhile, football fans see these replays and either accept the pundits conclusions, or if they have some refereeing experience, arrive at their own conclusions. Either way, there is growing discontent with the lack of use of technology which would allow just outcomes in the game, especially where it can be seen that in many cases the tables could be changed both at the top and the bottom by ensuring that the orrect decisions were made.

 

If as you say, the pundits sometimes get their conclusions wrong through lack of refereeing knowledge, then the solution is easy; put an ex-referee on the panel to tell them when they are talking rubbish.

[Sour Mash]

How is it not fair on the attackers, when they are the ones who have called for a video replay?

 

What has a bigger negative impact on a game - a penalty being wrongly given/not given or a team being given a goal kick? Why can you not give a goal kick? It's a pretty minor change in the rules.

 

I've yet to see any legitimate reason from you or mash as to why it wouldn't work. Just a lot of stubbornness and claims of 'it's a farce it wont work.'

Yeah, no legitimate reasons, apart from no logical process on how you'd stop the game and how long it would take to review a contentious decision from 15 different angles.

[Redslo]

The pundits just bang on about video technology constantly as it's their TV channels camera's and they can therefore charge for the privilege of using them for this purpose or to give themselves even more power in the game.

 

I suspect the right to use the footage would be incorporated into the TV contract without any significant change in the price. I certainly don't remember it being any kind of an issue for the NFL when they introduced replay review.

[Redslo]

They see the video replay from various angles and make a decision on it. It may be that as they are not experts, they are prone for making the wrong decision, whereas of course, a professional refereee who viewed the replay would invariably be able to make the right one. The referee on the pitch is not able to see everything, so often makes the wrong decision. Meanwhile, football fans see these replays and either accept the pundits conclusions, or if they have some refereeing experience, arrive at their own conclusions. Either way, there is growing discontent with the lack of use of technology which would allow just outcomes in the game, especially where it can be seen that in many cases the tables could be changed both at the top and the bottom by ensuring that the orrect decisions were made.

 

If as you say, the pundits sometimes get their conclusions wrong through lack of refereeing knowledge, then the solution is easy; put an ex-referee on the panel to tell them when they are talking rubbish.

 

ESPN FC, a TV show here in the USA, often has the referee in charge of MLS's referees on to discuss calls and tell the pundits where they got it wrong. They rarely listen.

 

In any case, reply should be added for off sides calls because they can be done reliably and quickly. I am not too sure about anything else just because of the subjective nature of the calls. The NFL added replay but generally it is used for objective determinations, not subjective ones.

[Roadkill]

If video technology was to be introduced it should be the referee that instigates the review like we see in rugby.

 

The referee could refer a decision to the video official if he'd given a foul but wanted to check if it was in or outside the area, or if a defender was the last man or not.

 

Ideally we'd get a broadcast microphone so we could hear what he was referring as well, but that's another argument!

[Wes Tender]

Yeah, no legitimate reasons, apart from no logical process on how you'd stop the game and how long it would take to review a contentious decision from 15 different angles.

 

Look, I've told you a thousand times, don't exagerate. It only needs to take the one viewing that establishes whether contact was made in the box/the pass was offside/it was handball, etc. I suggest that once the video viewing has established something irrevocably, that they would stop watching any other angles.

[Sour Mash]

Look, I've told you a thousand times, don't exagerate. It only needs to take the one viewing that establishes whether contact was made in the box/the pass was offside/it was handball, etc. I suggest that once the video viewing has established something irrevocably, that they would stop watching any other angles.

But with the majority of cases it takes several viewings, from several angles to determine what the right decision is. And even then the debate can rumble on. Completely killing the flow of the game.