Video Technology (Again)

[CB Fry]

They should do a video replay of the effing bidding process.

[whelk]

Pen decision in Utd game could cost Swansea over £100m. 10 seconds later could see should've never been given.

[igsey]

Another example last night of an incorrect decision that would have been solved in about five seconds with a video replay - and was by Sky commentators who watched the replay. Should have been a free kick, not a penalty. Could have massively influenced the progress of the game if we could actually score penalties, especially as it was so early in the game.

[The9]

Another example last night of an incorrect decision that would have been solved in about five seconds with a video replay - and was by Sky commentators who watched the replay. Should have been a free kick, not a penalty. Could have massively influenced the progress of the game if we could actually score penalties, especially as it was so early in the game.

 

I'm still impressed that Bailly managed to stand with both feet in the box yet handle it outside - or was it actually "on the line" (or in this case above the line), in which case it's still a penalty? Haven't seen the footage yet, so genuinely asking.

[Heisenberg]

I think we only want or need video tech when decisions are AGAINST us?

 

I'm still in favor of letting this play out - over a season these things always seem to even out and adds to the excitement. win some lose some

[igsey]

I'm still impressed that Bailly managed to stand with both feet in the box yet handle it outside - or was it actually "on the line" (or in this case above the line), in which case it's still a penalty? Haven't seen the footage yet, so genuinely asking.

 

 

Looks like a free kick to me, though to be fair that image is from the start of the contact, he was moving backwards at the time.

[mrfahaji]

 

Looks like a free kick to me, though to be fair that image is from the start of the contact, he was moving backwards at the time.

 

Presumably the infringement is given for 'first contact' though? So even if he caught the ball outside and carried it into the box, it would be a free kick rather than a penalty?

[Hatch]

Most refs would have given that as Redmond offside, and then booked him.

[Whitey Grandad]

Presumably the infringement is given for 'first contact' though? So even if he caught the ball outside and carried it into the box, it would be a free kick rather than a penalty?

 

No. If the whistle hasn't gone you can let play run on a bit to see if there's an advantage.

 

For what little it's worth, I thought it was outside the box but I haven't seen a replay. The ref looked over to his assistant who wisely kept out of it before pointing to the spot. It's strange but these 'questionable' penalties often end up not being converted.

[Saint_clark]

Definitely outside, shouldn't have been a pen. Although there was another blatant one inside the box later on in the half that they didn't show a single replay of for reasons unknown, so we probably got the right amount of penalties anyway.

[benjii]

Mike Dean didn't know. He looked at the linesman. The linesman presumably wasn't paying attention or had line of sight blocked so didn't know.

 

So Dean did what any good narcissist would do and gave the penalty.

[Whitey Grandad]

Mike Dean didn't know. He looked at the linesman. The linesman presumably wasn't paying attention or had line of sight blocked so didn't know.

 

So Dean did what any good narcissist would do and gave the penalty.

 

He obviously forgot that it was against Man U

 

Strange decision though. Even from my position it looked comfortably outside and we were always told not to give a penalty unless you were more than certain.

[Whitey Grandad]

Mike Dean didn't know. He looked at the linesman. The linesman presumably wasn't paying attention or had line of sight blocked so didn't know.

 

So Dean did what any good narcissist would do and gave the penalty.

 

I've just watched the recording and it seems to me that Dean got the decision right. First contact is outside and as Bailly falls backwards into the area the ball runs off his arm. Nobody would have complained about a free kick on the edge of the area though.

[Lighthouse]

Stopping the clock in rugby seems to work well enough and they have 80 minute games with plenty of stoppages. They also don't have players rolling around on the floor, demanding a physio and some magic spray to try and waste time when they are winning. If the clock is stopped that doesn't happen.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Seems someone at FIFA has been reading Saints web

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40311889

[Saint_clark]

Seems someone at FIFA has been reading Saints web

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40311889

 

Why not do that but keep the halves the same length? Why do you need to cut them down.

Also hate the idea that you can't score from a rebound on a penalty - a penalty is essentially just a free-kick in the box, once it's taken play has resumed.

[mikec]

Why not do that but keep the halves the same length? Why do you need to cut them down.

Also hate the idea that you can't score from a rebound on a penalty - a penalty is essentially just a free-kick in the box, once it's taken play has resumed.

 

I think the idea with cutting the halves is to keep the overall time to complete a match about the same as it is now, but to prevent a winning side from running down the clock by delaying set pieces and throwins, taking ages to complete a substitution and so on. In theory the ref should allow for all this anyway but they often don't seem to. I think the proposed change could be a good idea and is definitely worth trying.

 

I agree with you on the penalty thing though. I don't see the point of that at all.

[Lighthouse]

The penalty thing I think is to try and stop encroachment, not that I agree with it.

[Dark Munster]

Now goddammit you bloody dinosaurs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[davefoggy]

Now goddammit you bloody dinosaurs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I disagree. We DO NOT need VAR. We need officials to open their eyes. The whole stadium could see if was blatant hand ball, how on earth did the 3 match officials miss it?????

[Lighthouse]

I disagree. We DO NOT need VAR. We need officials to open their eyes. The whole stadium could see if was blatant hand ball, how on earth did the 3 match officials miss it?????

 

And yet here we are.

[Pamplemousse]

I disagree. We DO NOT need VAR. We need officials to open their eyes. The whole stadium could see if was blatant hand ball, how on earth did the 3 match officials miss it?????

 

To be honest I didn’t notice until I saw the replays. If they don’t see it they can’t give the decision.

 

The FA are to blame for not having sorted this issue out earlier.

[Dark Munster]

What is the argument against VAR? That referees should have their eyes open and should never make mistakes?

 

That it impedes the flow of the game? As if injuries, substitutions etc. don't?

 

At the very least have it to verify any disputed penalty decisions and goals (disallowed like Gabbi's at Wembley, or given ones like today).

 

Common Bloody Sense.

[Whitey Grandad]

What is the argument against VAR? That referees should have their eyes open and should never make mistakes?

 

That it impedes the flow of the game? As if injuries, substitutions etc. don't?

 

At the very least have it to verify any disputed penalty decisions and goals (disallowed like Gabbi's at Wembley, or given ones like today).

 

Common Bloody Sense.

 

If you review one decision then you have to review them all. It’s a sport, it’s not Russian roulette.

[Pamplemousse]

If you review one decision then you have to review them all. It’s a sport, it’s not Russian roulette.

 

No you don’t have to at all. Reviewing the key moments is all that is necessary. Works in other sports very well.

[shurlock]

If you review one decision then you have to review them all. It’s a sport, it’s not Russian roulette.

 

Wrong. It’s currently only used in a limited set of circumstances: goals, straight red card, penalties and mistaken identity. That may or may not expand in the future depending on stakeholder demand.

[shurlock]

What is the argument against VAR? That referees should have their eyes open and should never make mistakes?

 

That it impedes the flow of the game? As if injuries, substitutions etc. don't?

 

At the very least have it to verify any disputed penalty decisions and goals (disallowed like Gabbi's at Wembley, or given ones like today).

 

Common Bloody Sense.

 

You forgot protecting teams from refs like Whitey Grandad. Otherwise, spot on.

[whelk]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2018/jan/13/var-football-referees-emotional-game

Some good points here. We are all ranty now

[Fan The Flames]

I disagree. We DO NOT need VAR. We need officials to open their eyes. The whole stadium could see if was blatant hand ball, how on earth did the 3 match officials miss it?????

 

Refs and linesman thrive on the rule of law and love administering It, any lineo would have loved to have spotted that today and flagged for It; correctly disallowing a last minute goal is a heart thumping moment for our boys in black. So the fact the goal stood is simple, neither the ref or the linesman saw it. You either accept that as part of the game or you welcome assistance from modern technology.

[Kingsland Codger]

If you review one decision then you have to review them all. It’s a sport, it’s not Russian roulette.

 

It isn’t just a sport. It is a business.

[Whitey Grandad]

No you don’t have to at all. Reviewing the key moments is all that is necessary. Works in other sports very well.

 

But how do you know what they key moments were?

[Whitey Grandad]

Wrong. It’s currently only used in a limited set of circumstances: goals, straight red card, penalties and mistaken identity. That may or may not expand in the future depending on stakeholder demand.

 

Yes yes, I knew that, and that’s why it’s wrong. What about the decisions that aren’t given and the game carries on?

[John Boy Saint]

Interesting use of VAR in the Ingerland game tonight, Italian down in the box with a sore foot after a bit of play in the box, Italians claim for a corner which the ref gives them, then get a word in his ear and in the hustle and bustle Tarkowski is seen in slow mo to have stood on the Italians foot even though the Italian was on his way down. Full speed corner slo Mo pen.

[LGTL]

The entire thing is an utter farce. CLEAR AND OBVIOUS, how hard can it be?

 

I can't stand it and would love for it to be abolished totally.

[Whitey Grandad]

The entire thing is an utter farce. CLEAR AND OBVIOUS, how hard can it be?

 

I can't stand it and would love for it to be abolished totally.

 

It was always a silly idea but now that the genie has been let out of the bottle we shall have to suffer it. It will ruin the sport.

 

and that was a blatant dive.

[benjii]

There's nothing wrong with the idea but it has been implemented incompetently.

 

That clearly wasn't an obvious error. It was a debatable decision (in my mind, not a foul).

[Lighthouse]

Tarkowski stood on his foot before he went down. It's a penalty. It may not have been obvious on first viewing but it was a foul.

[Fan The Flames]

The entire thing is an utter farce. CLEAR AND OBVIOUS, how hard can it be?

 

I can't stand it and would love for it to be abolished totally.

 

People keep quoting clear and obvious as though that's want VAR is about, VAR is used to assist the ref for goals, penalties, straight red cards and mistaken identity. For penalties it's used to see if one shouldn't have been given or if one should have been given. It was used correctly as the rules stand.

[Graffito]

It was indeed.

 

I don't understand why people thought introducing video tech after years and years wanting it would be a seamless smooth process. It'll have problems to iron out and ultimately be a good thing.

 

It took them a few minutes to plug the telly in so the ref could watch it.

[badgerx16]

If it was an opposing defender treading on Gabbiadini's foot, which way would you want it to go ?

( And any technology that can catch Australians cheating has to be a good thing. )

[Whitey Grandad]

Tarkowski stood on his foot before he went down. It's a penalty. It may not have been obvious on first viewing but it was a foul.

 

That was obviously accidental and not the reason that the Italian went down. The significant thing is that not one of the other Italian players appealed for it. They were asking for a corner.

[Dark Munster]

There's nothing wrong with the idea but it has been implemented incompetently.

 

That clearly wasn't an obvious error. It was a debatable decision (in my mind, not a foul).

Exactly this. Of course the Luddites are dying to find an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Ohio Saint]

Exactly this. Of course the Luddites are dying to find an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

I have no dog in this fight, but your insult followed by a cliche was quite impressive. Take those out, and your post had no content whatsoever.

[VectisSaint]

People keep quoting clear and obvious as though that's want VAR is about, VAR is used to assist the ref for goals, penalties, straight red cards and mistaken identity. For penalties it's used to see if one shouldn't have been given or if one should have been given. It was used correctly as the rules stand.

 

People are mentioning clear and obvious because that is what it is meant to be used for. It is meant to be used to overturn clear or clear and obvious errors.

[Hatch]

VAR explained .

 

A decision is for your team - it is a great step forward.

Against your team - It's a disgrace, go back to the way it was before.

[brmbrm]

I have no dog in this fight, but your insult followed by a cliche was quite impressive. Take those out, and your post had no content whatsoever.

 

SNAP!!!

[Sour Mash]

People are mentioning clear and obvious because that is what it is meant to be used for. It is meant to be used to overturn clear or clear and obvious errors.

But that is one of the many reasons why this doesn't work. Who decides and defines what is meant by "clear and obvious"?

[sandwichsaint]

Goal line technology - clear and obvious improvement

 

Mistaken identity - not sure we've seen one yet (at least in this country's trials) but potentially useful

 

Offside - useful for 'obvious' wrong calls (where it's wrong by a foot or more either way) - which is extremely rare in itself (I would have used it for Gabbi at Wembley for eg). Where the players can't be split and we have to watch multiple replays to see whether they are a bootlace or a haircut either way - total waste of time, if you can't tell on one real-time viewing and one replay then it's advantage to the fd and he is not off side.

 

I wouldn't use it for penalties at all - the ones we've seen have been very debateable - and most of it comes down to a second round of 'interpretation' - if both sides are happy with a corner and the ref then gets a delayed voice in his ear saying it's a penalty it's a total farce. If we are going to give penalties for holding/pushing/treading/contact at set plays then there will be 5 or 6 every game - is this really what people want?

 

Retrospective diving - definitely a good idea but something that's proved much harder to implement in the real world. We have seen relatively few cases where bans have been dished out.

 

Genie clearly not going back in the bottle and we are lumbered with it but I can't see in what way it will 'settle down' or 'bed in', it is what it is - clunky and totally against the way football has traditionally been played. My opinion was to leave it at goal line technology and I've seen nothing in these trials to make me change my mind.

 

It might be good for the Playstation generation but it's not for the old-timers!

[SKD]

But that is one of the many reasons why this doesn't work. Who decides and defines what is meant by "clear and obvious"?

 

A panel of officials (other refs) watch the game in a location away from the stadium - they then alert the ref that a possible mistake has been made and then it is down to the official in charge of the game to decide if a mistake has been made.

 

Ultimately, technology or not, you still have the human aspect of the official in charge deciding if his decision is correct / incorrect and as we have seen in many case an offence isn't always that clear cut (last night being a clear example of that - whilst there was contact, I personally think that was a harsh to give a penalty).

[East Kent Saint]

It needs a review on use and possibly new rules ie clear space between players for offside or feet position used instead of a few millimeters of upper body etc They may also review penalties as nearly all players look for or admit they fall over to get a penalty as if you don't you don't get one . Could be penalty for obvious handball/professional foul or free kick from centre of D etc just saying...

[Sour Mash]

The whole system doesn't work. Just another nail in the coffin for football.