Video Technology (Again)

[Whitey Grandad]

We'll be laughing at the Luddites soon. Bet they thought having more than one sub would ruin the game too. And what a goalkeeper can't pick up a backpass? Don't mess with our sacred game!

 

Subs have ruined the game. Not as much as TV though.

[Whitey Grandad]

First paragraph - if a team has kept possession for several minutes they've gone backwards and sideways several times, so the second one would be a totally different attacking phase whether defenders have touched ball or not.

 

Second paragraph. Unfortunate for them, but then no more unfortunate than with the defending team winning the ball in mid-half and hitting the (previously) attacking team (who may now have several players going forward and out of position) on the break whereas if offside had been given (correctly or not) they'd have had chance to regroup defensively whilst the free kick was taken. Swings and roundabouts, things balance out, **** happens sometimes.

 

Unless a lino has made a really glaring error a replay would only be needed for those marginal decisions anyway. As a fan I'd sooner see play continuing as uninterruped as possible without being broken up because an attackers knee may or may not have been 6 inches forward of a defender who may even be on the other side of the pitch from him. Do such margins "really" give the attacker any advantage?

 

You have highlighted some of the problems with laws that were intended for a game of sport played all over the world at vastly different levels of playing fields and abilities. The offside law, as currently written, does not suit itself to technological implementation. It was originally aimed at preventing goalhanging.

[Nordic Saint]

If they did retrospective video reviews of past season, it would be interesting to see how many trophies would have to change hands. We might even have a couple more.

 

In the interest of fairness, video technology can only be a good thing. The sooner it comes, the better, except for the 'big clubs'. who might lose some of their advantage.

[Dark Munster]

The referee always has a better view than the TV.

 

Judging whether it's a dive involves getting into the mind of the alleged diver. What if the player is just trying to avoid what he thinks is coming? And remember that a lot of the laws are just 'in the opinion of the referee', not 'in the opinion of all those watching on the tele'.

Sorry Gramps, that's rubbish. The ref's view can be obstructed, whereas a camera can zoom in from multiple angles. And on top of that, the major advantage is the video ref can replay the incident in slow motion. The ref has one instantaneous look (possibly obscured) from ground level and that's it.

 

There's no comparison.

[Whitey Grandad]

Sorry Gramps, that's rubbish. The ref's view can be obstructed, whereas a camera can zoom in from multiple angles. And on top of that, the major advantage is the video ref can replay the incident in slow motion. The ref has one instantaneous look (possibly obscured) from ground level and that's it.

 

There's no comparison.

 

The ref is much closer and sees everything in 3D and much higher definition. Slow motion is the most misleading view you could ever have and zooming in doesn't actually give you any more information. Also TV never shows you all the other clues as to what takes place, where the players' eyes are looking, what is said, what is heard, whether the movement looks natural or is manufactured. The referee has the best view in the stadium. You should try it sometime. Video gives you a different view, not a better one.

[Dark Munster]

The ref is much closer and sees everything in 3D and much higher definition. Slow motion is the most misleading view you could ever have and zooming in doesn't actually give you any more information. Also TV never shows you all the other clues as to what takes place, where the players' eyes are looking, what is said, what is heard, whether the movement looks natural or is manufactured. The referee has the best view in the stadium. You should try it sometime. Video gives you a different view, not a better one.

We'll have to agree to disagree. But at the end of the day the video ref is there to aid the pitch ref, much like the linesman. The more help the better.

[Dark Munster]

The referee always has a better view than the TV.

 

[SKD]

The ref is much closer and sees everything in 3D and much higher definition. Slow motion is the most misleading view you could ever have and zooming in doesn't actually give you any more information. Also TV never shows you all the other clues as to what takes place, where the players' eyes are looking, what is said, what is heard, whether the movement looks natural or is manufactured. The referee has the best view in the stadium. You should try it sometime. Video gives you a different view, not a better one.

 

Is this a joke?

 

If not, I assume you've never played a competitive game of football nor sat pitch side and experienced how fast the game moves.

 

TV you get to watch multiple times, real life you get 1 shot and about 1 second to decide.

 

Ridiculous statement

[Sheaf Saint]

When refs are making howlers as huge as the handball decision not given tonight, the case for a video ref is overwhelming IMO. It's unforgivable that potential match (and season) defining moments like that can continue to happen when the technology exists to prevent it.

[Lighthouse]

Boro were awarded a goal blatantly a good yard offside tonight.

 

I'm sure some will say the gaping chasm between de Roon and the last defender is "open to interpretation" but hey ho.

[Whitey Grandad]

Is this a joke?

 

If not, I assume you've never played a competitive game of football nor sat pitch side and experienced how fast the game moves.

 

TV you get to watch multiple times, real life you get 1 shot and about 1 second to decide.

 

Ridiculous statement

 

I have played several hundred games and refereed about half that number.

 

You?

[Whitey Grandad]

When refs are making howlers as huge as the handball decision not given tonight, the case for a video ref is overwhelming IMO. It's unforgivable that potential match (and season) defining moments like that can continue to happen when the technology exists to prevent it.

 

That wasn't handball and no video ref would have ever overruled the on pitch decision.

[Whitey Grandad]

Boro were awarded a goal blatantly a good yard offside tonight.

 

I'm sure some will say the gaping chasm between de Roon and the last defender is "open to interpretation" but hey ho.

 

Yes, poor decision from the assistant.

[Lighthouse]

Stonewall Arsenal penalty not given.

[Lighthouse]

That wasn't handball and no video ref would have ever overruled the on pitch decision.

 

You're making yourself look foolish, that was a blatant handball and the replay showed it.

[Sour Mash]

When refs are making howlers as huge as the handball decision not given tonight, the case for a video ref is overwhelming IMO. It's unforgivable that potential match (and season) defining moments like that can continue to happen when the technology exists to prevent it.

 

It's a great example of why video technology wouldn't work, just down to the different interpretations of the same event by different individuals.

[Dark Munster]

[Whitey Grandad]

You're making yourself look foolish, that was a blatant handball and the replay showed it.

 

Far too close to give it. Go and learn the Laws of the Game and then take a course in refereeing. No video referee would have overturned that decision.

[Whitey Grandad]

Boro were awarded a goal blatantly a good yard offside tonight.

 

I'm sure some will say the gaping chasm between de Roon and the last defender is "open to interpretation" but hey ho.

 

There was quite a discussion between the referee and his assistant so his flag wasn't just taken at face value. It would enhance understanding if the officials could explain their decision making after the game.

[trousers]

Far too close to give it. Go and learn the Laws of the Game and then take a course in refereeing. No video referee would have overturned that decision.

Given how many times I've seen referees give a penalty in the same circumstances i would suggest a lot of referees need to attend the same course in that case...

[James]

The ref is much closer and sees everything in 3D and much higher definition. Slow motion is the most misleading view you could ever have and zooming in doesn't actually give you any more information. Also TV never shows you all the other clues as to what takes place, where the players' eyes are looking, what is said, what is heard, whether the movement looks natural or is manufactured. The referee has the best view in the stadium. You should try it sometime. Video gives you a different view, not a better one.

 

Why can't we have both then? Refs don't see this sometimes and video would quite clearly help. Can't agree that the ref has a better view than the TV replay though.

[Sour Mash]

Why can't we have both then? Refs don't see this sometimes and video would quite clearly help. Can't agree that the ref has a better view than the TV replay though.

 

It's been explained numerous times on here how/why tv replays wouldn't work.

[James]

It's been explained numerous times on here how/why tv replays wouldn't work.

 

Not going to go back over the whole thread but I think the sensible view is that they would work. As shown by the recent France v Spain friendly where it was trialled (decisions changed for the better). Works in other sports too. Can't see how it can possibly be a bad thing.

[James]

Given how many times I've seen referees give a penalty in the same circumstances i would suggest a lot of referees need to attend the same course in that case...

 

Keith Stroud probably needs to attend said course as well. The standard of refereeing in our leagues is not good at all IMO but that's another debate.

[doddisalegend]

Far too close to give it. Go and learn the Laws of the Game and then take a course in refereeing. No video referee would have overturned that decision.

 

 

So how close does it have to be before it is no longer deemed deliberate handball. Seems to me that if there is a regulation distance after which a handball can not be awarded defenders are missing a trick......

[eurosaint]

Saturday - Bertrand runs alongside Fraser = pen

Wednesday - Long runs alongside Palace defender = no pen

Very similar incidents but different outcomes = no clarity !

 

Ps. Schlupp handball was a stonewall pen IMHO, he swung his hand towards it, amazed it wasn't given = sorry Whitey !

[mrfahaji]

Not going to go back over the whole thread but I think the sensible view is that they would work. As shown by the recent France v Spain friendly where it was trialled (decisions changed for the better). Works in other sports too. Can't see how it can possibly be a bad thing.

 

Hmmmmm, lots of holes in this argument! I'm not set for or against the idea particularly, but there are plenty of 'sensible' reasons why it wouldn't work as well.

 

You can't use one example of where it has worked to support the entire rationale. That's like me saying "this coin always lands heads up", tossing it once, getting heads and saying "see, that proves it."

 

The fact that we have people disagreeing over the handball* shows the problem with subjective decisions, especially when there is a question of 'intent'. In the NFL, the video refs need significant evidence to overturn the 'ruling on the field', which I think would be a good rule of thumb, but it's one thing to decide whether someone's foot was in bounds, or whether the ball touched the ground, but quite another to decide whether a player intended to handball or meant to kick the opposition player in the face.

 

* You might counter that only Whitey Grandad is arguing that it wasn't a penalty, but you could easily have a scenario slightly less clear than the one yesterday, where the consensus is split.

Edited 6 April, 2017 by mrfahaji

[SKD]

I have played several hundred games and refereed about half that number.

 

You?

 

Then you should know that at the pace the game moves, it is much easier for someone who gets to watch 2 or 3 replays than someone who gets a split second to make a decision.

 

As it happens, I too am a qualified ref and played at a decent level until injuries hit. Talking from experience, Video replays will help.

 

Far too close to give it. Go and learn the Laws of the Game and then take a course in refereeing. No video referee would have overturned that decision.

 

Rubbish. His arm was in an 'unnatural position' and he made a clear movement with his arm, towards the ball. Accidental yes, but that doesn't stop it from being a penalty.

 

I don't know when you took your course, but by the look of things on this thread it may have been in the 40's

[doddisalegend]

Personally think we need to make it more Tyro league and get the players dads to run the lines it's the only way to get fair unbiased decisions.

[Sour Mash]

Not going to go back over the whole thread but I think the sensible view is that they would work. As shown by the recent France v Spain friendly where it was trialled (decisions changed for the better). Works in other sports too. Can't see how it can possibly be a bad thing.

 

You don't have to go over the entire thread, there are plenty of examples demonstrated.

 

But as you "Can't see how it can possibly be a bad thing" it doesn't seem like you're particularly interested in the subject anyway.

[Whitey Grandad]

Given how many times I've seen referees give a penalty in the same circumstances i would suggest a lot of referees need to attend the same course in that case...

 

They all go on residential courses where incidents such as this are examined in an attempt to get a modicum of consistency. Handball is one such case and the interpretation can change from season to season. That incident last night was too close to the kicker and his hand was moving in that direction before the ball was kicked so it was not an unnatural movement. Consider this, if Roger East had been the video ref would he have overruled the on pitch decision and given a penalty?

[Whitey Grandad]

Then you should know that at the pace the game moves, it is much easier for someone who gets to watch 2 or 3 replays than someone who gets a split second to make a decision.

 

As it happens, I too am a qualified ref and played at a decent level until injuries hit. Talking from experience, Video replays will help.

 

 

 

Rubbish. His arm was in an 'unnatural position' and he made a clear movement with his arm, towards the ball. Accidental yes, but that doesn't stop it from being a penalty.

 

I don't know when you took your course, but by the look of things on this thread it may have been in the 40's

 

'Accidental' and yet a penalty?

[Whitey Grandad]

So how close does it have to be before it is no longer deemed deliberate handball. Seems to me that if there is a regulation distance after which a handball can not be awarded defenders are missing a trick......

 

There are a number of factors to be considered. Time to react is one of them. If there were always penalties for such examples then players would spend the whole game trying to kick the ball at the defenders' hands.

[Whitey Grandad]

Saturday - Bertrand runs alongside Fraser = pen

Wednesday - Long runs alongside Palace defender = no pen

Very similar incidents but different outcomes = no clarity !

 

Ps. Schlupp handball was a stonewall pen IMHO, he swung his hand towards it, amazed it wasn't given = sorry Whitey !

 

Fraser was hauled backwards by Bertrand, different to Long's case.

 

If it was stonewall then why did one of our best referees have a very clear view of it and decide it wasn't?

[trousers]

They all go on residential courses where incidents such as this are examined in an attempt to get a modicum of consistency. Handball is one such case and the interpretation can change from season to season. That incident last night was too close to the kicker and his hand was moving in that direction before the ball was kicked so it was not an unnatural movement. Consider this, if Roger East had been the video ref would he have overruled the on pitch decision and given a penalty?

I've no idea

[eurosaint]

Fraser was hauled backwards by Bertrand, different to Long's case.

 

If it was stonewall then why did one of our best referees have a very clear view of it and decide it wasn't?

 

If Wednesday's performance is anything to go by then Roger East is categorically not one of our best referees IMO !

Bertrand did not HAUL back Fraser, he harried alongside of him and even Graham Poll on BT Sport said it was a joke (and he was a top referee)

All about opinions though and all refs make mistakes as well as players, managers and even Saintsweb punters

[doddisalegend]

There are a number of factors to be considered. Time to react is one of them. If there were always penalties for such examples then players would spend the whole game trying to kick the ball at the defenders' hands.

 

 

So there is no minium distance in which it can no longer be a deliberate handball its about reaction time? In which case it was a pen despite being close to the palace defender he had quick enough reactions to bat the ball away with his hand a deliberate movement that was plain as day to most of the crowd in the itchen north, the Solent commentators, MoTD commentator and the saints players.....so basically a deliberate handball and a pen.

[kwsaint]

I am all in favour of video technology - Gabbi's goal v Man U in the League Cup final would have stood.

 

The issue is when it can be used and when it can't. There are times when video technology actually distorts things. In cricket they have problems with catches, where the catches have carried but the video gives the impression that they have not.

 

They need to do proper trials of this and work out a sensible set of rules. Such as whether teams can appeal decisions to a video ref, and if so how often. And which types of decision can be referred and which ones cant. My view is that the video ref can only override the ref when it is obviously wrong. Like in cricket where certain appeals become 'umpires decision'. Rugby, Cricket and Tennis all use video technology to benefit the game. It's long overdue for Football to do the same.

[whelk]

Any of the luddites want to square their views when the refs themselves are in favour?

[Dark Munster]

And yet another diabolical ref decision (in the Leicester-Athletico match) that could've been avoided with video technology.

[Whitey Grandad]

And yet another diabolical ref decision (in the Leicester-Athletico match) that could've been avoided with video technology.

 

Total billhooks. The Athletico player was vertically over the line when he was fouled.

[Whitey Grandad]

So there is no minium distance in which it can no longer be a deliberate handball its about reaction time? In which case it was a pen despite being close to the palace defender he had quick enough reactions to bat the ball away with his hand a deliberate movement that was plain as day to most of the crowd in the itchen north, the Solent commentators, MoTD commentator and the saints players.....so basically a deliberate handball and a pen.

 

Hi hand was moving that way before the ball was kicked.

[trousers]

[igsey]

The Leicester game is yet another argument in favour of video replays during the game. If the video is reviewed and given as a free-kick (correctly) then there's no penalty and Leicester possibly come out of the game with a better result. If the penalty is clear and therefore given after a review then we avoid the whole controversy and was-it-wasn't-it argument. With a video replay last night there's no way a competent referee would give that as a penalty.

[eurosaint]

Total billhooks. The Athletico player was vertically over the line when he was fouled.

 

I think your eyesight is fading Whitey, contact was clearly made outside of the box !

So far you are the only person (pundits etc..) apart from the ref who actually thinks that it was a pen !

[Dark Munster]

The Leicester game is yet another argument in favour of video replays during the game. If the video is reviewed and given as a free-kick (correctly) then there's no penalty and Leicester possibly come out of the game with a better result. If the penalty is clear and therefore given after a review then we avoid the whole controversy and was-it-wasn't-it argument. With a video replay last night there's no way a competent referee would give that as a penalty.

That certainly rules out Gramps.

[Minsk]

Video refereeing will be used at next year's World Cup for incidents that include goals, penalties and red cards.

 

Good news.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/video-referees-technology-world-cup-2018-russia-gianni-infantino-fifa-a7704161.html

[Dark Munster]

Video refereeing will be used at next year's World Cup for incidents that include goals, penalties and red cards.

 

Good news.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/video-referees-technology-world-cup-2018-russia-gianni-infantino-fifa-a7704161.html

Whitey Grandad is going roll over in his grave.

[Whitey Grandad]

The Leicester game is yet another argument in favour of video replays during the game. If the video is reviewed and given as a free-kick (correctly) then there's no penalty and Leicester possibly come out of the game with a better result. If the penalty is clear and therefore given after a review then we avoid the whole controversy and was-it-wasn't-it argument. With a video replay last night there's no way a competent referee would give that as a penalty.

 

My last comment on this incident:

Albrighton admitted that he was going to take out De Griezman but got there too late and got outsmarted. There was a contact outside the area but there was further contact inside it and Albrighton even grabs at De Griezman's arm as he cuts inside. It was a deliberate assault, a poorly timed attempt at a professional foul and he got punished for it. De Griezman was fouled, De Griezman was inside the area.

 

If you give that as a free kick outside the area then you also have to consider that it would quite likely have been a red card.

[Sour Mash]

Video refereeing will be used at next year's World Cup for incidents that include goals, penalties and red cards.

 

Good news.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/video-referees-technology-world-cup-2018-russia-gianni-infantino-fifa-a7704161.html

 

Quite fitting for what will be the worst world cup in modern memory.