Video Technology (Again)

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

You're talking about the debate by two football pundits, where it has already been pointed out that they often do not know the rules, so cannot interpret them correctly sometimes. As has been suggested, if there were two qualified referees reviewing contentious incidents, if they were split in their opinions, then the on-field referee could have the deciding vote. If both officials agree, then there is no problem. I disagree that there would be more than two or three angles required to establish most incidents. Inside or outside the box only requires cameras along one horizontal plane or two vertical ones for example. In other cases, it should be clear enough from looking at one camera showing the incident as to which other camera angle will reveal the better view taking into account players potentially blocking the view. In many cases, the game need not be stopped for much longer than it otherwise would be in the event of a free kick/penalty/offside decision.

[Sour Mash]

You're talking about the debate by two football pundits, where it has already been pointed out that they often do not know the rules, so cannot interpret them correctly sometimes. As has been suggested, if there were two qualified referees reviewing contentious incidents, if they were split in their opinions, then the on-field referee could have the deciding vote. If both officials agree, then there is no problem. I disagree that there would be more than two or three angles required to establish most incidents. Inside or outside the box only requires cameras along one horizontal plane or two vertical ones for example. In other cases, it should be clear enough from looking at one camera showing the incident as to which other camera angle will reveal the better view taking into account players potentially blocking the view. In many cases, the game need not be stopped for much longer than it otherwise would be in the event of a free kick/penalty/offside decision.

They take loads of angles, most are such small margins. So you might have two refs with split opinions, they need to debate, then go back and go with the original decision, completely killing the flow of the game.

 

Without even touching upon the problem of when the game would actually be stopped.

[Wes Tender]

They take loads of angles, most are such small margins. So you might have two refs with split opinions, they need to debate, then go back and go with the original decision, completely killing the flow of the game.

 

Without even touching upon the problem of when the game would actually be stopped.

 

You're never going to be convinced, so presumably you're happy that there is cheating like simulation, time-wasting, poor refereeing decisions that can change a match, etc. As for your second point, the flow of the game can be killed by a player pretending to be more hurt than he really is, sometimes when he has faked contact. Otherwise, for several of the incidents which would be the subject of scrutiny, the game has already been halted.

[Sour Mash]

You're never going to be convinced, so presumably you're happy that there is cheating like simulation, time-wasting, poor refereeing decisions that can change a match, etc. As for your second point, the flow of the game can be killed by a player pretending to be more hurt than he really is, sometimes when he has faked contact. Otherwise, for several of the incidents which would be the subject of scrutiny, the game has already been halted.

I'm not happy with any of that, but nothing you've suggested would stop it happening.

[shurlock]

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.

 

The NFL is drawn into subjective questions - indeed the biggest decisions the officials face almost always subjective. Among other things, define a 'football move' when establishing whether a receiver completed a catch. Just ask Dez Bryant and the Cowboys. If anything, the trend is to make more subjective calls reviewable - not hard to imagine PI being the next in line.

 

The biggest difference in the use of replay between the NFL and football is not objective vs. subjective. It's that, all things being equal, football has so few gamechanging moments -a pen given(not given) etc- which, if technology was introduced, would well and truly put the spotlight on the robustness of replay and review system. Can see why some might see it as poisoned chalice, though by the same token, surely as a matter of principle, you should be aiming to minimise refereeing mistakes when when refereeing mistakes can carry such large consequences. As such, technology is almost certainly one part of the solution IMO.

[shurlock]

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.

 

For once, I agree with you. Most of the objections seem to be logistical rather than a matter of principle. As such, they are not insurmountable. For instance, the practice in other sports is for there to be 'conclusive' evidence before a decision is overturned. If those reviewing a decision can't make their minds up and things are inconclusive, the original decision stands. As for hampering the flow of games, giving managers a fixed number of appeals would almost certainly address that.

[Sour Mash]

For once, I agree with you. Most of the objections seem to be logistical rather than a matter of principle. As such, they are not insurmountable. For instance, the practice in other sports is for there to be 'conclusive' evidence before a decision is overturned. If those reviewing a decision can't make their minds up and things are inconclusive, the original decision stands. As for hampering the flow of games, giving managers a fixed number of appeals would almost certainly address that.

But that would still hamper the flow of the game. How long does everyone sit around while the decision is reviewed? What's to stop the manager/captain throwing in an appeal just to stop a counter attack for example. The arguments against are with regards to both prinicple and logistics - ultimately there is not a workable solution.

[SaintSteve]

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.

 

Unfortunately having TV reviews during the game does not mean the correct decision will be the conclusion. The JWP incident is a classic case; the pundits were split as to whether it was a penalty, let alone a red card. So, what do we think would have resulted from the 4th Official ?.. just another level of review which the pundits will discuss; not unlike the 3rd official in Cricket.

The only scenarios which would benefit are decisions which are black and white in terms of being right or wrong; e.g. Offside.

[Whitey Grandad]

Unfortunately having TV reviews during the game does not mean the correct decision will be the conclusion. The JWP incident is a classic case; the pundits were split as to whether it was a penalty, let alone a red card. So, what do we think would have resulted from the 4th Official ?.. just another level of review which the pundits will discuss; not unlike the 3rd official in Cricket.

The only scenarios which would benefit are decisions which are black and white in terms of being right or wrong; e.g. Offside.

 

Very difficult to judge on TV. The best position is to stand on the line, level with the second to last defender and look across the pitch at right angles. The TV view is never going to be as accurate as this. There are of course the blatant mistakes but that just means we need better officials. I haven't seen any of these this season.

 

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.

 

What does contact have to do with it? It has absolutely no bearing as to whether there was a foul. 'Trip or attempt to trip' is the wording which implies intent and you cannot judge that on TV.

[shurlock]

But that would still hamper the flow of the game. How long does everyone sit around while the decision is reviewed? What's to stop the manager/captain throwing in an appeal just to stop a counter attack for example. The arguments against are with regards to both prinicple and logistics - ultimately there is not a workable solution.

 

Any decision wouldn't be reviewed until the play had broken down (in the same way, physios can't come onto the pitch to attend to an injury). That would prevent your situation of a team (cynically) trying to stop a counter. If it turned out that there was an infringement that the ref had missed, the play would then be pulled back. If not the resulting play would stand.

 

Either way, i have my doubts whether managers would abuse the system if it mean losing a valuable challenge.

 

Lastly, there's a subtle but important difference between adding to the length of a game and disrupting the internal flow of a game. Arguably, technology would affect the former but not the latter. Games would be lengthened but the length would depend on the number of challenges at a manager's disposal. One challenge per side -assuming they are both used- would add what? 5-7 mins in total? Obviously a game would take longer if managers had more challenges or were permitted to challenge decisions until they got one wrong -quasi-precedents which exist in other sports. In terms of time/flow, I don't see that much difference between appealing a decision and a player receiving treatment.

[Wes Tender]

What does contact have to do with it? It has absolutely no bearing as to whether there was a foul. 'Trip or attempt to trip' is the wording which implies intent and you cannot judge that on TV.

 

I'm talking about diving, cheating to gain a penalty. Are you saying that if a player dives in the box when it is demonstrated via the video that no contact at all took place, that the penalty might justifiably be awarded because the defender "intended" to bring the striker down? So how does the referee judge whether there was intent to trip? Mind-reading?

[Sour Mash]

Any decision wouldn't be reviewed until the play had broken down (in the same way, physios can't come onto the pitch to attend to an injury). That would prevent your situation of a team (cynically) trying to stop a counter. If it turned out that there was an infringement that the ref had missed, the play would then be pulled back. If not the resulting play would stand.

 

Either way, i have my doubts whether managers would abuse the system if it mean losing a valuable challenge.

 

Lastly, there's a subtle but important difference between adding to the length of a game and disrupting the internal flow of a game. Arguably, technology would affect the former but not the latter. Games would be lengthened but the length would depend on the number of challenges at a manager's disposal. One challenge per side -assuming they are both used- would add what? 5-7 mins in total? Obviously a game would take longer if managers had more challenges or were permitted to challenge decisions until they got one wrong -quasi-precedents which exist in other sports. In terms of time/flow, I don't see that much difference between appealing a decision and a player receiving treatment.

Of course managers would abuse the system if it was in the 91st minute of a game and it stopped a counter attack in its tracs. And what if the ball next goes out of play with it going in the goal at the other end of the pitch? What a complete farce that would be.

[shurlock]

Of course managers would abuse the system if it was in the 91st minute of a game and it stopped a counter attack in its tracs. And what if the ball next goes out of play with it going in the goal at the other end of the pitch? What a complete farce that would be.

 

As I say, they wouldn't be able to challenge a decision until the play had ended, so a team couldn't just stop a counterattack. In the extreme scenario that the play resulted in a goal -when was the last time a goal on the counter resulted from a dubious decision or even an injury, I don't see why pulling play back would be a farce. After all, the goal wouldn't have occurred without the ref's mistake. Indeed, a goal from a refereeing mistake would be the bigger injustice.

Edited 5 May, 2015 by shurlock

[Sour Mash]

As I say, they wouldn't be able to challenge a decision until the play had ended, so a team couldn't just stop a counterattack. In the extreme scenario that the play resulted in a goal -when was the last time a goal on the counter resulted from a dubious decision or even an injury, I don't see why pulling play back would be a farce. After all, the goal wouldn't have occurred without the ref's mistake. Indeed, a goal from a refereeing mistake would be the bigger injustice.

So the fans celebrating their last minute winner would realise a few minutes later that the goal wasn't going to stand as a decision 2 mins earlier at the other end of the pitch was being reviewed, everyone stands around for a few minutes. Completely ends up as a farce.

[Batman]

So the fans celebrating their last minute winner would realise a few minutes later that the goal wasn't going to stand as a decision 2 mins earlier at the other end of the pitch was being reviewed, everyone stands around for a few minutes. Completely ends up as a farce.

 

Remember 2 years ago (when ever it was) Leicester v Watford in the playoffs and Leicester have a penalty in the last min, score and go to Wembley. Their play hits the ball straight at the Watford keeper and they break, go down the other end and Deeney bangs it in. The ball never went out of play. The place is going nuts.....how on earth could that be taken back. it would be chaos

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm talking about diving, cheating to gain a penalty. Are you saying that if a player dives in the box when it is demonstrated via the video that no contact at all took place, that the penalty might justifiably be awarded because the defender "intended" to bring the striker down? So how does the referee judge whether there was intent to trip? Mind-reading?

 

If an attacker has to take avoiding action that leads to him losing control of the ball then that can be a foul. Contact has no place in the laws of the game. Intent has to be determined by the referee and this judgment is based on a number of factors, speed and movement of the players, expressions on their faces, where their eyes are looking, anything that has been said, these are all very subtle and are unlikely to have been picked up by TV. Slow-motion is no help because it disguises the momentum of the player, you need to judge in real time whether his change in movement is caused by an external influence or is self-inflicted.

[shurlock]

Remember 2 years ago (when ever it was) Leicester v Watford in the playoffs and Leicester have a penalty in the last min, score and go to Wembley. Their play hits the ball straight at the Watford keeper and they break, go down the other end and Deeney bangs it in. The ball never went out of play. The place is going nuts.....how on earth could that be taken back. it would be chaos

 

What's your point? It was a perfectly good goal. It wouldn't be taken back.

[igsey]

But that would still hamper the flow of the game. How long does everyone sit around while the decision is reviewed? What's to stop the manager/captain throwing in an appeal just to stop a counter attack for example. The arguments against are with regards to both prinicple and logistics - ultimately there is not a workable solution.

 

Because everybody gathering round the referee or walking off to chat to the manager and grab a drink doesn't 'hamper the flow of the game', right? Surely the tech comes into play when the ball goes out, rather than interrupting the game, it's not a difficult concept.

 

There's no point arguing with you, you've obviously decided on your opinion and won't budge. Doesn't make a difference. Goal line technology has been a success; the refereeing this season has been a shambles almost unanimously. The combination of these two means there will be more technology coming into the game, no doubt about it.

[Sour Mash]

Because everybody gathering round the referee or walking off to chat to the manager and grab a drink doesn't 'hamper the flow of the game', right? Surely the tech comes into play when the ball goes out, rather than interrupting the game, it's not a difficult concept.

 

There's no point arguing with you, you've obviously decided on your opinion and won't budge. Doesn't make a difference. Goal line technology has been a success; the refereeing this season has been a shambles almost unanimously. The combination of these two means there will be more technology coming into the game, no doubt about it.

But you're still missing the point that what if the ball next goes out of play with the oppossition scoring? You can't answer that and it's one of the many reasons why thankfully this additional technology won't be used.

[Wes Tender]

If an attacker has to take avoiding action that leads to him losing control of the ball then that can be a foul. Contact has no place in the laws of the game. Intent has to be determined by the referee and this judgment is based on a number of factors, speed and movement of the players, expressions on their faces, where their eyes are looking, anything that has been said, these are all very subtle and are unlikely to have been picked up by TV. Slow-motion is no help because it disguises the momentum of the player, you need to judge in real time whether his change in movement is caused by an external influence or is self-inflicted.

 

So to confirm; a player can dive without any contact at all with the defender and this can justifiably be a penalty if it is in the box, provided that the referee had decided that the player had to take evasive action to prevent him being tackled, just in case he might have become injured in the process? Naturally the refs who miss the dive will use that as an excuse for why they got it wrong. As for the televised replays of the incident, nobody will defend the referee by suggesting that the diver took evasive action legitimately, so the referee will be deemed by most to be incompetent and the player will be deemed to be a cheat. Furthermore, the referee hearing that he is blamed for incompetence for incidents like this, will come across a player who has gained a reputation for diving and then be influenced to show a yellowfor simulation, instead of awarding the penalty that you believe might often be more appropriate.

 

Why do these players who go looking for penalties bother to trail their leg deliberately into the path of a defender's legs, when they don't even need to make contact with them at all?

[Deano6]

But you're still missing the point that what if the ball next goes out of play with the oppossition scoring? You can't answer that and it's one of the many reasons why thankfully this additional technology won't be used.

 

So what if it does? Fans thought their team had scored but they hadn't. Happens all the time. If you want to score legitimately then just don't cause an infringement in the build-up.

 

I don't see why fans behaviour should determine the result of a match.

[Sour Mash]

So what if it does? Fans thought their team had scored but they hadn't. Happens all the time. If you want to score legitimately then just don't cause an infringement in the build-up.

 

I don't see why fans behaviour should determine the result of a match.

No it doesn't. The game never runs on for two minutes, a team scores, fans and players celebrate, then they realise the ref has called the game back to an incident that had happened two minutes ago at the other end of the pitch and everyone stands around for a few minutes while waiting for a decision from a bloke in an office. That never happens and never will thankfully.

[Whitey Grandad]

So to confirm; a player can dive without any contact at all with the defender and this can justifiably be a penalty if it is in the box, provided that the referee had decided that the player had to take evasive action to prevent him being tackled, just in case he might have become injured in the process? Naturally the refs who miss the dive will use that as an excuse for why they got it wrong. As for the televised replays of the incident, nobody will defend the referee by suggesting that the diver took evasive action legitimately, so the referee will be deemed by most to be incompetent and the player will be deemed to be a cheat. Furthermore, the referee hearing that he is blamed for incompetence for incidents like this, will come across a player who has gained a reputation for diving and then be influenced to show a yellowfor simulation, instead of awarding the penalty that you believe might often be more appropriate.

 

Why do these players who go looking for penalties bother to trail their leg deliberately into the path of a defender's legs, when they don't even need to make contact with them at all?

 

No, it's not like that. If a player has to take avoiding action, not necessarily to avoid injury but in an attempt to avoid a challenge and get a shot off on goal, then that can be considered a foul. The divers will hang out a leg and engineer contact in order to try to make the perceived offence more definite. You can always tell a diver by looking at the leg that has not made contact with the opposition. In normal play this would be taking the next step in a natural sequence but a diver will drag this unused leg behind and conseqeuntly there will be a dive instead of a stumble. Hazard did this on Sunday but there was also a push just before this which would be enough for a penalty. He was definitely looking for the penalty and a defender obliged. The challenge can still be a foul even if the attacker dives or somehow exaggerates the fall. A lot of referees I knew would expect the attacker to make some sort of attempt to avoid the challenge and only if they were brought down or prevented from continuing or getting off a shot would they then award a penalty.

 

There does not have to be contact for it to be a foul.

Contact does not necessarily make it a foul.

 

To answer your last question, they make contact because they want to force the referee to make a decision. You can often tell that they have done this deliberately when you see them beating the ground in frustration. They practice it all the time. My dad used to watch Tottenham train in the 60s and one of the coaches used to sit on a stool with his back to goal and do training sessions with the forwards saying 'make him foul you, go on, make him foul you'. Some modern forwards are very good at it, so good that nobody ever questions the results. Christiano Ronaldo for example has very quick feet and will look for the defender to place his foot down and then 'trip' over it. The essential question is 'was he tripped or did he trip'.

[Saint Without a Halo]

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

 

In rugby the only time the video evidence comes into play is when the ref asks for it! otherwise his word goes. The video is their to assist him when he has doubts not over rule his calls!

 

Football is no different to ruby in being a fast game where the ref can miss things!

[Wes Tender]

No, it's not like that. If a player has to take avoiding action, not necessarily to avoid injury but in an attempt to avoid a challenge and get a shot off on goal, then that can be considered a foul. The divers will hang out a leg and engineer contact in order to try to make the perceived offence more definite. You can always tell a diver by looking at the leg that has not made contact with the opposition. In normal play this would be taking the next step in a natural sequence but a diver will drag this unused leg behind and conseqeuntly there will be a dive instead of a stumble. Hazard did this on Sunday but there was also a push just before this which would be enough for a penalty. He was definitely looking for the penalty and a defender obliged. The challenge can still be a foul even if the attacker dives or somehow exaggerates the fall. A lot of referees I knew would expect the attacker to make some sort of attempt to avoid the challenge and only if they were brought down or prevented from continuing or getting off a shot would they then award a penalty.

 

There does not have to be contact for it to be a foul.

Contact does not necessarily make it a foul.

 

To answer your last question, they make contact because they want to force the referee to make a decision. You can often tell that they have done this deliberately when you see them beating the ground in frustration. They practice it all the time. My dad used to watch Tottenham train in the 60s and one of the coaches used to sit on a stool with his back to goal and do training sessions with the forwards saying 'make him foul you, go on, make him foul you'. Some modern forwards are very good at it, so good that nobody ever questions the results. Christiano Ronaldo for example has very quick feet and will look for the defender to place his foot down and then 'trip' over it. The essential question is 'was he tripped or did he trip'.

 

I realise that you have experience of refereeing, but it seems to me that there are two types of dive. One where the player deliberately goes down by fabricating contact by moving his leg towards a tackle and the other whereby the player goes down without any contact being made on him at all. Personally, it is the latter which I detest more and consider to be the more blatant form of cheating.

[Deano6]

No it doesn't. The game never runs on for two minutes, a team scores, fans and players celebrate, then they realise the ref has called the game back to an incident that had happened two minutes ago at the other end of the pitch and everyone stands around for a few minutes while waiting for a decision from a bloke in an office. That never happens and never will thankfully.

 

That's a very extreme situation that happens basically never. And if it does, well f**k 'em. If fans got a sniff that running on the pitch could change an outcome of a game there would be carnage!

[Lighthouse]

No it doesn't. The game never runs on for two minutes, a team scores, fans and players celebrate, then they realise the ref has called the game back to an incident that had happened two minutes ago at the other end of the pitch and everyone stands around for a few minutes while waiting for a decision from a bloke in an office. That never happens and never will thankfully.

 

How is it any different to a goal being disallowed for offside or a handball in the build up?

 

How often does that really happen. How many goals have Saints scored or conceded this season which followed the same passage of play as a legitimate penalty call? It will happen occasionally but it's better than the daft decisions we're getting every week right now.

 

Where did you get 'a few minutes' from? If the video ref has a couple of screens showing 4 camera angles, how long does it really take to rewind 10 seconds, pick the best camera angle and play it forward in slow motion. Anyone fairly competent with a computer could make a decision in 30 seconds. It's not as if you have to review every single angle in slow motion. There is normally one clear angle for any given incident which shows clearly if there is contact, handball, offside, in/out the box etc.

[Sour Mash]

That's a very extreme situation that happens basically never. And if it does, well f**k 'em. If fans got a sniff that running on the pitch could change an outcome of a game there would be carnage!

It's a very extreme situation so that you can understand the point. Add it's not about just "f**k 'em", it leaves the game in a mess.

[Sour Mash]

How is it any different to a goal being disallowed for offside or a handball in the build up?

 

How often does that really happen. How many goals have Saints scored or conceded this season which followed the same passage of play as a legitimate penalty call? It will happen occasionally but it's better than the daft decisions we're getting every week right now.

 

Where did you get 'a few minutes' from? If the video ref has a couple of screens showing 4 camera angles, how long does it really take to rewind 10 seconds, pick the best camera angle and play it forward in slow motion. Anyone fairly competent with a computer could make a decision in 30 seconds. It's not as if you have to review every single angle in slow motion. There is normally one clear angle for any given incident which shows clearly if there is contact, handball, offside, in/out the box etc.

 

1) Because that happens there and then, not the game brought back to something that may or may not have happened two or three minutes before.

2) I've used an extreme example to easily illustrate the point, I can come up with loads more if you want?

3) Most contentious decisions take several viewings, different angles, slow motion and there's no guarantee that the first (or any) tv viewing the bloke sat in the room views is a better view then the referee in the ground looking at it from 5 yards away. Some decisions could be instantaneous, plenty will take multiple replays and angles.

[Lighthouse]

It's a very extreme situation so that you can understand the point. Add it's not about just "f**k 'em", it leaves the game in a mess.

 

No it leaves the game, in very rare circumstances, with a disallowed goal and a penalty awarded. It's not a difficult situation to understand, though it would be disappointing for the team who had the goal disallowed. However, you would walk away from the game feeling as if justice had been done. If the video ref proved that you should have conceded a penalty, then you should never have had the chance to score the goal.

 

As has been said several times; it's a very rare event. How often is a clear penalty not given and the opposing team then scores immediately without the ball going out of play. Yes there are the occasional, "we should have had a penalty 2 minutes before they scored!" moments but there is usually a goal kick or a thrown in in there somewhere, when a video ref could be consulted without stopping the game.

[Sour Mash]

No it leaves the game, in very rare circumstances, with a disallowed goal and a penalty awarded. It's not a difficult situation to understand, though it would be disappointing for the team who had the goal disallowed. However, you would walk away from the game feeling as if justice had been done. If the video ref proved that you should have conceded a penalty, then you should never have had the chance to score the goal.

 

As has been said several times; it's a very rare event. How often is a clear penalty not given and the opposing team then scores immediately without the ball going out of play. Yes there are the occasional, "we should have had a penalty 2 minutes before they scored!" moments but there is usually a goal kick or a thrown in in there somewhere, when a video ref could be consulted without stopping the game.

Do you not understand that its just an easy example to help you to understand why your solution doesn't work and why its not used?

[shurlock]

Do you not understand that its just an easy example to help you to understand why your solution doesn't work and why its not used?

 

It illustrates nothing. It's just a strawman example that's trying to conjure up the most controversial scenario, however remote. You'll be adding beach balls into your range of scenarios before long.

 

And it's not even controversial. I see nothing wrong in ruling out a goal and pulling play back if it resulted from the kind of infringements we've been discussing.

[Lighthouse]

Do you not understand that its just an easy example to help you to understand why your solution doesn't work and why its not used?

 

GLT was never used up until very recently. Then incidents like Lampard's goal against Germany and that goal Ukraine scored against England highlighted the ridiculous farce in not using this equipment.

 

It's coming eventually whether you like it or not. It will probably take a couple more incidents like the hand of God, or Henry against Ireland which decided major tournaments/qualifying but it will come.

 

I've explained enough times how your example can be quite simply dealt with. You insist on speaking as if having a goal disallowed and penalty rightly awarded will somehow destroy the whole game. It wont and the small, occasional delays involved will be no more significant than players time wasting by faking injury or kicking the ball into the crowd.

[Sour Mash]

It illustrates nothing. It's just a strawman example that's trying to conjure up the most controversial scenario, however remote. You'll be adding beach balls into your range of scenarios before long.

 

And it's not even controversial. I see nothing wrong in ruling out a goal and pulling play back if it resulted from the kind of infringements we've been discussing.

Just because I've explained why your solution doesn't work doesn't make everything a strawman.

[Whitey Grandad]

No it leaves the game, in very rare circumstances, with a disallowed goal and a penalty awarded. It's not a difficult situation to understand, though it would be disappointing for the team who had the goal disallowed. However, you would walk away from the game feeling as if justice had been done. If the video ref proved that you should have conceded a penalty, then you should never have had the chance to score the goal.

 

As has been said several times; it's a very rare event. How often is a clear penalty not given and the opposing team then scores immediately without the ball going out of play. Yes there are the occasional, "we should have had a penalty 2 minutes before they scored!" moments but there is usually a goal kick or a thrown in in there somewhere, when a video ref could be consulted without stopping the game.

 

If it was a clear penalty it would have been given. We just have to remember that the referee is neutral and probably won't see the incidents in the same light that we do.

[Whitey Grandad]

I realise that you have experience of refereeing, but it seems to me that there are two types of dive. One where the player deliberately goes down by fabricating contact by moving his leg towards a tackle and the other whereby the player goes down without any contact being made on him at all. Personally, it is the latter which I detest more and consider to be the more blatant form of cheating.

 

They're both despicable. The ones I feel some sympathy for are those which are just trying to get out of the way yet still get booked. The body language tells you a lot, some of them are looking back at the referee before they even hit the ground. Some throw their heads back and give out a little yelp. Pathetic.

[Lighthouse]

If it was a clear penalty it would have been given. We just have to remember that the referee is neutral and probably won't see the incidents in the same light that we do.

 

Yeah...

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Yeah...

 

 

Fonte (?) got the ball, didn't he?

 

And watch Agüero throw his head back at the moment the tackle comes in.

[Jimmy_D]

The way I'd do it would be to have a 5th official with access to the video.

 

If the referee hasn't seen something clearly or isn't sure, he can ask the video referee for advice and to review while the game continues, if required.

 

That way, the only impact on the game is that some decisions take a bit longer before the game is pulled back, but end up being correct more often.

 

The power remains in the hands of the referee, and the game isn't interrupted by requests for decisions to be reviewed.

[igsey]

The way I'd do it would be to have a 5th official with access to the video.

 

If the referee hasn't seen something clearly or isn't sure, he can ask the video referee for advice and to review while the game continues, if required.

 

That way, the only impact on the game is that some decisions take a bit longer before the game is pulled back, but end up being correct more often.

 

The power remains in the hands of the referee, and the game isn't interrupted by requests for decisions to be reviewed.

 

This would make sense. The fact that an incident occurs and within 10 seconds everybody watching on Sky (and sometimes in the stadium) can see if the decision was right or wrong is frankly a joke.

[david in sweden]

Many people seem to be concerned over the amount of time it would take - if the game is stopped for Video review.

I watch quite a few games every week on TV and have noted the following from my own stats. (Of course I don't do this for every game, but periodically).

 

1) Controversial decisions (penalties etc), occur - on average - 3- 4 times a game, often less.

2) normal stoppages like throw-ins can take anything up to 20 secs after ball goes out.

3) Corner kicks often upto 45 secs, sometimes longer.

4) Placed freekicks can easily take 1 minute , and I have timed one at 1min 15 secs.)

 

Referees (apparantly) add-on 30 seconds for the delay each time a player is subbed, hence the normal 3 mins after " the 90 ".

 

the TV replays, we all watch are frequently available in 10-15 secs. after an incident. Where's the " justice " when millions of fans see it, and the ref. doesn't ?

 

I really can't see them as game spoilers, and " correct decisions " by officials would go a long way towards giving them more credibilty and less supporter abuse.

[Deano6]

Just because I've explained why your solution doesn't work doesn't make everything a strawman.

 

I don't see that you've explained why it doesn't work. You've just said it would be different to how it is now. The same complaint could have been lodged by cricket fans about reviewing the award of a wicket (run-out / LBW). Or by tennis fans. Or NFL fans.

 

 

In terms of fans reactions, I think you're underestimating the fans' ability to adapt to an evolution of the game, which is by its nature just an arbitrary set of rules in any case.

 

Currently, it might go a little something like this:

"Get in - we've scorred. Yeeeeesssss! Get in. You lot over there are all sh*tters and sh*g your mothers!!! ...oh bugger, it's been disallowed for offside / handball / a foul in the buildup"

 

 

In the new world it might go something like:

"Get in - we've scorred. Yeeeeesssss! Get in. You lot over there are all sh*tters and sh*g your mothers!!! ...oh bugger, it's being reviewed for an earlier incident [switch to cricket/tennis/NFL mode to find out the outcome] ...yesssss / noooooooo"

 

It's not like the fans wouldn't be aware something controversial had happened shortly before. In fact the ref could even indicate that he's going to review something with an arm gesture so everyone knows to expect it. Would simply add to the jeopardy!

 

 

Now you very well might not like that (I will bet money you don't), but it doesn't mean it doesn't work. The fact the ball ended up in the other net is really of no consequence to the process, so to suggest it causes the whole system to melt down is a fallacy (as opposed to certain individual fans who I'm sure will have a meltdown!).

 

 

In fact of more danger to the review system would be if the ball ends up in the same net. That would need some thought - would the attacking team automatically get the benefit of the advantage played, or would there be a mandatory review? If the latter then a team may be waiting to hear if their goal stands or if they need to take a penalty, which would hinge on whether they were fouled in the build-up!

[Sour Mash]

I don't see that you've explained why it doesn't work. You've just said it would be different to how it is now. The same complaint could have been lodged by cricket fans about reviewing the award of a wicket (run-out / LBW). Or by tennis fans. Or NFL fans.

 

 

In terms of fans reactions, I think you're underestimating the fans' ability to adapt to an evolution of the game, which is by its nature just an arbitrary set of rules in any case.

 

Currently, it might go a little something like this:

"Get in - we've scorred. Yeeeeesssss! Get in. You lot over there are all sh*tters and sh*g your mothers!!! ...oh bugger, it's been disallowed for offside / handball / a foul in the buildup"

 

 

In the new world it might go something like:

"Get in - we've scorred. Yeeeeesssss! Get in. You lot over there are all sh*tters and sh*g your mothers!!! ...oh bugger, it's being reviewed for an earlier incident [switch to cricket/tennis/NFL mode to find out the outcome] ...yesssss / noooooooo"

 

It's not like the fans wouldn't be aware something controversial had happened shortly before. In fact the ref could even indicate that he's going to review something with an arm gesture so everyone knows to expect it. Would simply add to the jeopardy!

 

 

Now you very well might not like that (I will bet money you don't), but it doesn't mean it doesn't work. The fact the ball ended up in the other net is really of no consequence to the process, so to suggest it causes the whole system to melt down is a fallacy (as opposed to certain individual fans who I'm sure will have a meltdown!).

 

 

In fact of more danger to the review system would be if the ball ends up in the same net. That would need some thought - would the attacking team automatically get the benefit of the advantage played, or would there be a mandatory review? If the latter then a team may be waiting to hear if their goal stands or if they need to take a penalty, which would hinge on whether they were fouled in the build-up!

I've just given you one simple example of why it doesn't work, to make it easiest to understand. I can give more examples if you want?

 

Cricket/NFL/Tennis all have very consistent, very regular, fairly prolonged stops in play that football doesn't. That's why it works and is used for them and it's not used for football.

[St_Tel49]

You're never going to be convinced, so presumably you're happy that there is cheating like simulation, time-wasting, poor refereeing decisions that can change a match, etc. As for your second point, the flow of the game can be killed by a player pretending to be more hurt than he really is, sometimes when he has faked contact. Otherwise, for several of the incidents which would be the subject of scrutiny, the game has already been halted.

 

As is usually the case people spend hours discussing fine margin errors that referees make and totally ignore the fact that the mistakes that players make have a more profound effect on the result of the match. When players stop missing sitters then we should expect perfection from referees. Until then I will live with the errors.

[Dark Munster]

I've just given you one simple example of why it doesn't work, to make it easiest to understand. I can give more examples if you want?

 

Cricket/NFL/Tennis all have very consistent, very regular, fairly prolonged stops in play that football doesn't. That's why it works and is used for them and it's not used for football.

See post 91.

[shurlock]

If it was a clear penalty it would have been given. We just have to remember that the referee is neutral and probably won't see the incidents in the same light that we do.

 

Are you suggesting that refs don't make clear (if honest) mistakes? We just have to remember that we're neutral and probably won't see the incidents in the same light that apologists or members of the refereeing profession do.

[Patrick Bateman]

My only thought about the downside of video replays is that it'd take the "fun" out of the game. The bit when the crowd are angry about the refs decisions which gets the volume going again or the bit afterwards in the pub when you debate the decisions good or bad.

 

In general, I do think some modernisation is needed, but I do fear it'd make the crowd even more sterile. Thoughts?

[Whitey Grandad]

Are you suggesting that refs don't make clear (if honest) mistakes? We just have to remember that we're neutral and probably won't see the incidents in the same light that apologists or members of the refereeing profession do.

 

Of course they make mistakes but I maintain that they're not as 'clear' as many make out.

 

I presume you meant to say 'not neutral' there?

[david in sweden]

If an attacker has to take avoiding action that leads to him losing control of the ball then that can be a foul. Contact has no place in the laws of the game. Intent has to be determined by the referee and this judgment is based on a number of factors, speed and movement of the players, expressions on their faces, where their eyes are looking, anything that has been said, these are all very subtle and are unlikely to have been picked up by TV.

 

 

I'm always interested in your input, especially with your refereeing background, but reading above I am surprised there aren't far more fouls given in games if this is true.

 

This suggests that ....any defender who tackles an attacker who is in possesion of the ball is - de facto - committing a foul. How can this be in reality?

When is an " interception " legal, and a tackle deemed to be a foul? It surely makes nonsense of any consistant standard of refereeing.

For interest sake....would YOU have given two penalties in the Sunderland game? ....and not for the one against Shane Long?

 

We have both seen excellent examples in games of split-second timing where an attacker is disposessed fairly, and he loses control / possession of the ball.

It's not a foul....but it's the defender's task to stop the attack, and regain the ball. If this leads to the attacker " falling / diving " ..who gets the yeallow / red card?

[david in sweden]

I've just given you one simple example of why it doesn't work, to make it easiest to understand. I can give more examples if you want?

 

Cricket/NFL/Tennis all have very consistent, very regular, fairly prolonged stops in play that football doesn't. That's why it works and is used for them and it's not used for football.

 

Have you watched very many Ice Hockey games ?