Video Technology (Again)

[david in sweden]

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.

 

Good point.

I'm pleased to see that refs. allow play to continue, (after a foul).. if it's an advantage to the attacking side, and later go back and caution the offending player.

[Sour Mash]

See post 91.

Football doesn't have the consistent, regular, prolonged stops in play that NFL, Cricket and Tennis have. I'd have thought that bit at least would be obvious.

[shurlock]

Football doesn't have the consistent, regular, prolonged stops in play that NFL, Cricket and Tennis have. I'd have thought that bit at least would be obvious.

 

Why would consistent, regular, prolonged stops in play be necessary if managers had a fixed number of challenges or referees could only review the most important cases -red cards, penalties, fouls or offside calls that lead directly to goals- which are almost always accompanied by a break in play?

[Sour Mash]

Why would consistent, regular, prolonged stops in play be necessary if managers had a fixed number of challenges or referees could only review the most important cases -red cards, penalties, fouls or offside calls that lead directly to goals- which are almost always accompanied by a break in play?

I was responding to a post that was comparing to the system that works in those sports as an example of this system working for football.

 

But to answer your point, managers would use any spare appeals they have in the last 5 minutes of every game to break up play, stop opposition breaks, throw the appeal in when the opposition is around your 18 yard box, would happen all the time.

[MAY-Z]

I was responding to a post that was comparing to the system that works in those sports as an example of this system working for football.

 

But to answer your point, managers would use any spare appeals they have in the last 5 minutes of every game to break up play, stop opposition breaks, throw the appeal in when the opposition is around your 18 yard box, would happen all the time.

 

But if you are only given one or two a match and the ball is dead anyway what difference would it make.

 

If you were serious about stoppages being you would be advocating that the play cannot stop for an injury and if it does tbtwd player concerned is given a mandatory time off the field - not just walk to the side and come straight back on.

 

End of the day the top leagues around the world are longer a game they are full time professions based upon vast sums of money so the more decisions that are correct the better

[Sour Mash]

But if you are only given one or two a match and the ball is dead anyway what difference would it make.

 

If you were serious about stoppages being you would be advocating that the play cannot stop for an injury and if it does tbtwd player concerned is given a mandatory time off the field - not just walk to the side and come straight back on.

 

End of the day the top leagues around the world are longer a game they are full time professions based upon vast sums of money so the more decisions that are correct the better

Why only one or two a game? And if a its going into the dying minutes of the game, managers would risk using their appeal to stop a great chance of scoring for the opposition if they're ina good attacking possition, the point I was responding to suggeted it would be a managers appeal and not when the ball is next dead.

 

Unfortunately, basic health and safety concerns for players will always mean that play needs to stop for injuries/treatment, that's fairly obvious and not really anything to do with this debate.

 

The amount of money in the game isn't really relevant if the solution to your problem doesn't actually work anyway.

[Whitey Grandad]

But if you are only given one or two a match and the ball is dead anyway what difference would it make.

 

If you were serious about stoppages being you would be advocating that the play cannot stop for an injury and if it does tbtwd player concerned is given a mandatory time off the field - not just walk to the side and come straight back on.

 

End of the day the top leagues around the world are longer a game they are full time professions based upon vast sums of money so the more decisions that are correct the better

 

You can't let that influence anything, it's not the fault of the game. These vast sums are paid for the game as it is. One of its big attractions is the continuous ebb and flow and any extra stoppages will spoil this.

[shurlock]

Why only one or two a game? And if a its going into the dying minutes of the game, managers would risk using their appeal to stop a great chance of scoring for the opposition if they're ina good attacking possition, the point I was responding to suggeted it would be a managers appeal and not when the ball is next dead.

 

Unfortunately, basic health and safety concerns for players will always mean that play needs to stop for injuries/treatment, that's fairly obvious and not really anything to do with this debate.

 

The amount of money in the game isn't really relevant if the solution to your problem doesn't actually work anyway.

 

We're going round in circles. Other sports permit a fixed number of challenges -something Alladyce recommends. And to repeat once again, a challenge would only be looked at after the resulting play had broken down, so teams couldn't use them to prevent goal scoring opportunities. You'll then say its a farce to bring a play back if the team ends up scoring. Etc etc. Better to call it quits.

[Lighthouse]

Football doesn't have the consistent, regular, prolonged stops in play that NFL, Cricket and Tennis have. I'd have thought that bit at least would be obvious.

 

Hang on, in this same thread you said

 

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.

 

Which is it?

[Sour Mash]

We're going round in circles. Other sports permit a fixed number of challenges -something Alladyce recommends. And to repeat once again, a challenge would only be looked at after the resulting play had broken down, so teams couldn't use them to prevent goal scoring opportunities. You'll then say its a farce to bring a play back if the team ends up scoring. Etc etc. Better to call it quits.

Better to call it quits when you realise you're wrong I guess

[Sour Mash]

Hang on, in this same thread you said

 

 

 

Which is it?

Look up the words "consistent", "regular" and "prolonged" in the dictionary and see if they apply to the stoppages in football the same way they do to stoppages in cricket/Tennis/NFL. Give us a shout once you're done.

[Twiggy]

Hang on, in this same thread you said

 

 

 

Which is it?

 

 

Probably forgot to switch accounts.

[Lighthouse]

Look up the words "consistent", "regular" and "prolonged" in the dictionary and see if they apply to the stoppages in football the same way they do to stoppages in cricket/Tennis/NFL. Give us a shout once you're done.

 

So you think the ball spends 1/3 of the time out of play, (your words not mine, apparently 30 minutes would have to be added to the 90 if we stopped the clock) but this doesn't constitute regular, prolonged or consistent breaks in play? Right oh...

 

However, at no point in these 30 minutes should we spend 2 minutes (most decisions would take a lot less but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) reviewing a potentially game changing incident on video.

 

But then you also said...

 

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.

 

So if there are 2 minutes before the ball goes out of play in some instances, the video ref would already have come to a decision whilst the ball was in play. So no time at all would be lost. The video ref wouldn't have to wait until the ball was out of play to START reviewing the footage.

[Sour Mash]

So you think the ball spends 1/3 of the time out of play, (your words not mine, apparently 30 minutes would have to be added to the 90 if we stopped the clock) but this doesn't constitute regular, prolonged or consistent breaks in play? Right oh...

 

However, at no point in these 30 minutes should we spend 2 minutes (most decisions would take a lot less but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) reviewing a potentially game changing incident on video.

 

But then you also said...

 

 

 

So if there are 2 minutes before the ball goes out of play in some instances, the video ref would already have come to a decision whilst the ball was in play. So no time at all would be lost. The video ref wouldn't have to wait until the ball was out of play to START reviewing the footage.

You haven't looked up the meaing of the words yet. It might help you to understand the difference between the games of cricket/NFL/Tennis and football, but who knows, they all just seem the same to you.

[igsey]

You haven't looked up the meaing of the words yet. It might help you to understand the difference between the games of cricket/NFL/Tennis and football, but who knows, they all just seem the same to you.

 

At the end of the day, it's a moot point. The technology will be happening, probably in time for the next world cup, whether you like it or not. All you've shown here is your lack of ability to have a reasoned debate.

[Sour Mash]

At the end of the day, it's a moot point. The technology will be happening, probably in time for the next world cup, whether you like it or not. All you've shown here is your lack of ability to have a reasoned debate.

 

Yes, because saying it's going to happen, but not being able to explain how it would work in practice adds so much to the debate.

[Deano6]

Yes, because saying it's going to happen, but not being able to explain how it would work in practice adds so much to the debate.

 

As opposed to you who keeps repeating that you have proven that it wouldn't work while ignoring evidence to the contrary...

 

 

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.

 

 

Since you haven't actually provided any new information in this post, you're just stubbornly clinging to a prior point, I'll indulge you and look at your killer claim that proves it won't work...

 

 

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.

 

 

Well, Sour Mash my friend, what would happen is that after the ball goes in the net, the play would be reviewed. If a penalty should have been awarded in the build-up the play goes back to that incident and the penalty is taken and the game continues from there. If a penalty shouldn't have been awarded then there is nothing wrong with the goal scored and it stands.

 

Nothing in there suggests that it "doesn't work". Unless by "doesn't work" you mean you don't like it, or that the game would have a considerably new element from how it is now. Both of which are valid objections, and if it is unpopular enough idea then perhaps we shouldn't implement it. But that requires discussion and debate, and from the reactions above I think there is a fair amount of diversity in views on where it should end up. By claiming it "doesn't work" you are trying to have your cake and eat it by shutting down any need for discussion - unfortunately you're going to have to work harder than that and join the debate as people aren't buying it. Maybe you should provide more examples, provided they are better than this one.

 

 

 

I also note that you have raised a few times that there is a problem of managers throwing appeals while the game is going on in the last minute to break up an attack. That is a very well made point, and I agree with you. The only thing is I didn't see anyone advocating for that. I saw two options put forward:

 

(1) Next natural break in play either the ref decides for himself it should be reviewed, or you could give the managers a chance to appeal

(2) An independent person (4th / 5th official?) reviews as the game goes on and alerts the ref to stop the game if he thinks something should be awarded

 

They are both interesting ideas. Both have pros and cons, but so does the current status quo which surely has the greatest scope for errors (none are completely error free). The second of these has a certain appeal as it doesn't really feel any different to a linesman flagging for an offence while the game continues, although there is scope for considerably longer delays. The first one finds a natural break in play and allows longer to make decisions, but has the disadvantage of possibly being considerably delayed and leads to more time stopped (though not necessarily any longer than an injury would). Both have the advantage over the status quo of leading to more correct decisions. So it's a balance - everyone will have their views and different people will prioritise different things. It seems like you value a continual game with decisions made on the spot, and are prepared to sacrifice more correct decisions to achieve that. Others may see it differently.

 

 

By the way, I don't mean to make this personal. I am enjoying your contributions to this thread, and you're almost single-handedly keeping it going. You've made me think more about it than I had before, and I may even come over to your side of the debate by the end as I've thought of a few more scenarios that make it tricky (though not unworkable) - not least the situation where the ball ends up in the same net.

[Whitey Grandad]

I find it very depressing that anybody she had think that TV gives you a better view of the game than being out in the middle of the pitch a few yards away from the action with a full view of every little action that a player might take and with a history of the way that they have behaved previously in the game. I really can't see the problem with the present system and r the need to change anything. The thing that does need changing is the education and attitude of the media.

[Deano6]

I find it very depressing that anybody she had think that TV gives you a better view of the game than being out in the middle of the pitch a few yards away from the action with a full view of every little action that a player might take and with a history of the way that they have behaved previously in the game. I really can't see the problem with the present system and r the need to change anything. The thing that does need changing is the education and attitude of the media.

 

Really Whitey? You can't see why the ability to watch an incident a couple of times over is better than seeing it once? Or that seeing it from an angle that is less obscured, or might have happened behind you, could be a better view than from a single pair of eyes?

 

That zoom/slow-motion wouldn't be of value here...

 

http://zippy.gfycat.com/CalmWelloffAstarte.webm

 

 

Refs are good, but they're not infallible!

[Whitey Grandad]

Really Whitey? You can't see why the ability to watch an incident a couple of times over is better than seeing it once? Or that seeing it from an angle that is less obscured, or might have happened behind you, could be a better view than from a single pair of eyes?

 

That zoom/slow-motion wouldn't be of value here...

 

http://zippy.gfycat.com/CalmWelloffAstarte.webm

 

 

Refs are good, but they're not infallible!

 

No, they're not, but they have the best view of anybody, are a lot closer and have a stereoscopic view. There are a lot of other clues as to what goes on, things that the players have said, where their eyes are looking, that sort of thing.

 

That link doesn't work on my iPad, I'll have a look tomorrow, thanks.

[Dark Munster]

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?

No problem, the crowd can get angry and scream at the video ref. To facilitate this, microphones should be set up in the stands so that the crowds fury can be piped loud and clearly into the video room.

[Lighthouse]

So far today Burnley denied a "stonewall," penalty and West Ham have a goal disallowed for a dubious offside decision.

[OldNick]

what happens if the game goes on while the replay is being sorted and the other team score.? it could be bedlam

[USA SaintsFan]

So far today Burnley denied a "stonewall," penalty and West Ham have a goal disallowed for a dubious offside decision.

 

Typical day in the Premier League it is then.

[Minsk]

We were robbed again today. It should have been 7!

 

Seriously though, simple use of video technology would have seen that goal stand - without interfering with the flow of play at all. It was instantly obvious on TV that Pelle was no where near off-side.

[SaintLiam]

We were robbed again today. It should have been 7!

 

Seriously though, simple use of video technology would have seen that goal stand - without interfering with the flow of play at all. It was instantly obvious on TV that Pelle was no where near off-side.

 

Could've been worse - had Benteke converted that chance he had we'd have been 1 down and it might be a totally different result.

[benjii]

Spurs have just scored an offside goal.

 

Our decision today was terrible. The ref didn't even speak to the lino. If he had then surely the goal would've been allowed.

[Whitey Grandad]

We were robbed again today. It should have been 7!

 

Seriously though, simple use of video technology would have seen that goal stand - without interfering with the flow of play at all. It was instantly obvious on TV that Pelle was no where near off-side.

 

It was too close for that to be over-ruled. I thought at the game that he was ok and I've just seen the replay. From that I would say he's probably onside but he does leave a trailing foot which might be enough.

[Saint_clark]

Could've been worse - had Benteke converted that chance he had we'd have been 1 down and it might be a totally different result.

 

Not sure how video technology would have led to that, but OK.

[Saint_clark]

It was too close for that to be over-ruled. I thought at the game that he was ok and I've just seen the replay. From that I would say he's probably onside but he does leave a trailing foot which might be enough.

 

Absolutely everybody else i've spoken too/seen on twitter has said it was nowhere near close.

[trousers]

It was too close for that to be over-ruled.

 

It wasn't close, it was obviously onside. I just think the lino was watching the other player (Long?) who was offside and instinctively flagged when he finally switched his attention to Pelle.

[Saint Ian]

Absolutely everybody else i've spoken too/seen on twitter has said it was nowhere near close.

 

I've just watched it back. He was a good yard onside.

[Whitey Grandad]

It wasn't close, it was obviously onside. I just think the lino was watching the other player (Long?) who was offside and instinctively flagged when he finally switched his attention to Pelle.

 

It was close. Most people make the mistake of looking at the centre of the body but if 'any part' is nearer the goal than the defender then he's offside. 'Any part' includes his heel.

[Whitey Grandad]

Absolutely everybody else i've spoken too/seen on twitter has said it was nowhere near close.

 

Then absolutely every don't know the laws. Close, and I'd have let him go but he should have got back quicker.

[trousers]

It was close. Most people make the mistake of looking at the centre of the body but if 'any part' is nearer the goal than the defender then he's offside. 'Any part' includes his heel.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that. And it still wasn't close....

[igsey]

How long would it have taken for a video ref to decide if the foul by Lucas there was inside the box or outside? About 10 seconds?

[Whitey Grandad]

How long would it have taken for a video ref to decide if the foul by Lucas there was inside the box or outside? About 10 seconds?

 

Why do you think it was outside? The referee (Neil Moss?) was a few yards away and looking right along the line. Do you think the point at which the contact occurs is where the foul takes place, or is it the position of the fouled player?

[igsey]

Why do you think it was outside? The referee (Neil Moss?) was a few yards away and looking right along the line. Do you think the point at which the contact occurs is where the foul takes place, or is it the position of the fouled player?

 

Yes, I think it was outside the box but he fell into the box. It's a penalty if the contact continued in the box but it didn't appear to. Either way, I'm sure Jon Moss would have appreciated a second opinion with a replay, and it wouldn't have delayed the game at all.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes, I think it was outside the box but he fell into the box. It's a penalty if the contact continued in the box but it didn't appear to. Either way, I'm sure Jon Moss would have appreciated a second opinion with a replay, and it wouldn't have delayed the game at all.

 

You haven't answered my second point. Is it where the contact is or where the player is?

[Lighthouse]

That was easily onside. Every fan, pundit, journalist or otherwise I've seen said it was onside.

 

That's beside the point anyway. If it's debatable whether someone is offside, they're not offside. Like any other foul, if you can't see it you can't give it. The benefit of doubt should lie with the attacker, offside shouldn't be given just because a play-safe lino thinks it might be.

[Sour Mash]

We were robbed again today. It should have been 7!

 

Seriously though, simple use of video technology would have seen that goal stand - without interfering with the flow of play at all. It was instantly obvious on TV that Pelle was no where near off-side.

A few of you still don't understand why it won't work.

[Batman]

you should not need technology to get the right call on this one yesterday.

just a poor show from the lino

 

They mentioned on sky during the liverpool game after another horror show from a terrible ref (who has the cup final) Johnathan Moss, that the officials will be in over the summer for 'extensive' training

[Whitey Grandad]

you should not need technology to get the right call on this one yesterday.

just a poor show from the lino

 

They mentioned on sky during the liverpool game after another horror show from a terrible ref (who has the cup final) Johnathan Moss, that the officials will be in over the summer for 'extensive' training

 

What was borrow show about it? He got the penalty call right. The officials undergo extensive training every summer.

[Batman]

What was borrow show about it? He got the penalty call right. The officials undergo extensive training every summer.

 

It was outside the box ffs

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[igsey]

It was outside the box ffs

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree with you. The fact that there is some dispute surely opens the case for technology even further? The amount of time it took for the Liverpool players to complain to the referee could have easily been used to watch a replay and make a better-informed decision and the flow of the game would not have been affected at all. I'm not going to both arguing with Gramps and Mash about the outcome of that specific decision because it's irrelevant, I just don't understand their arguments that using technology would interrupt the flow of the game. We were watching a replay within about 3 seconds of the decision being given.

[Minsk]

A few of you still don't understand why it won't work.

 

Alternatively, a couple of you (who for some strange reason are vehemently against any use of video technology) continually fail to understand how it can easily be brought in with no detriment to the 'flow of the game' at all.

 

In both cases yesterday (Pelle's wrongly disallowed goal and the non-penalty at Anfield) a 4th (or 5th) official watching a live feed could have easily, and very quickly, rectified the situation.

 

It really isn't rocket science.

 

Goal line technology has been a complete disaster hasn't it?

 

:lol:

 

[Lighthouse]

I just love the idea of an old man, 40 years from now sitting with a grand child on his knee.

 

"Listen up lad, I'll tell you all about the worst Saints game I ever went to."

"What happened Grandad?"

"It was a 7-1 win against Aston Villa back in 2015."

"That doesn't sound like a bad game."

"Oh it was, not because of the result but I had to stand and wait for a whole 30 seconds whilst a man in a room looked at a video replay."

"What's so bad about that Grandad?"

"It completely ruined the 'flow of the game'. Ruined it I tells ya!!"

"But what about every substitution ever in the history of football, don't they usually take about 30 seconds each?"

"Those 30 seconds are completely different to video replay 30 seconds. You're too young to understand."

[Whitey Grandad]

It was outside the box ffs

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Both players were inside the box.

[Batman]

Both players were inside the box.

 

the challenge was outside of the box. I have no idea why you say otherwise, you could see this at full speed

[Whitey Grandad]

the challenge was outside of the box. I have no idea why you say otherwise, you could see this at full speed

 

First contact was outside but there was further contact inside so this makes it a penalty. Think of it as playing advantage for a second to see what develops. In this case the attacker was brought down inside the box but he might have got passed and maybe even have scored. When this is no longer possible then a penalty is awarded. Lucas was inside the box, his foot makes first contact outside but then his knee catches the opponent's thigh on the line and brings him down.