Video refs

[BeardyChops]

The limited use of video replay in tennis (3 challenges allowed per player per set) makes me wonder why we don't have video replay on a limited basis in football. eg each team can make three challenges during a match - but only in reaction to a stoppage in play.

What happened when the FA referees presented the case to FIFA a few years ago?

 

[CHAPPERS]

Anything that slows the game down would destroy it.

 

[Easy 10]

Nay, nay and thrice nay. It'd be a RIGHT old can of worms.
Video relpay doesn't necessarily clear up everything, it can still be highly ambiguous and down to the opinion of whoever is watching it. How many times do you see pundits watching replays after a game and arguing the toss over whether the ref made the right decision or not ? Penalties, fouls, sendings off etc are always down to an INTERPRETATION, and there are plenty of instances where a replay will not make a decision any easier or clearer. All you can ask for is an honest decision, and if an honest mistake is made then so be it.

The only video replay I would have is goal-line technology to see if the ball has crossed the line or not. Outside of that, video replays have NO place in football imho.

 

[defrocked priest]

Video replays would only undermine what the officials are suppose to be doing in the first place, their jobs.

 

[strings]

The only video replay I would have is goal-line technology to see if the ball has crossed the line or not. Outside of that, video replays have NO place in football imho.

I pretty much agree with this - because the technology exists to make it instant - i.e. the moment the ball crosses the line, a tone sounds in the referees/assistant referees ears. I would however stretch it to throw-ins/corners too (again, because it is instant and cannot be argued with).

Beyond that, I would not be a fan - although it would be nice to see hawkeye used for the pundits maybe.

 

[beorhthelm]

the general guidence for all rules in Football are that they apply at all levels, from Champions Leauge to Hackney Marshes. i like this. video replay can only work from the pro level up, and even then outside of the premiership there is unlikly to be sufficient camera coverage to improve the refs view.

however, i do think there should be more retrospective use of video evidence, aimed at cleaning up some of the cheating in the pro game, ie for deliberate diving.

 

[HG201]

Any new introduction to football, such as video replays or goal line technology would completely ruin the game, and therefore should never happen
Obviously some people will argue that it makes the game more fair,which yes it probably would, but this works both ways, say we scored a goal which was offside or a foul to stay up, i will use Stuart Storer's goal vs Doncaster at the Goldstone as an example. The player on the line pulls the keeper to the ground. Nowadays, that is a definate foul, and would be disallowed. So obviously in this case, the replays would have a negative effect.

In my opinion, just leave the game how it is, no stupid plastic technology and the game will be fine. The last thing we want is decisions that take 5 mins to make, making the game last for 4 hours!!!
Jubious decisions are what makes football so great, there would be a lot less fun involved without them

 

[sten_super]

On Saturday I saw the perfect example of why a video ref should not be used. In the Lions game, Fourie goes over in the corner for the Saffers. The assistant referee says that he had a foot in touch, then scored, meaning it should be a 5m lineout to the Lions. However the referee, because he's not sure, goes to the video ref. The video ref deliberates for several minutes, sees no compelling evidence either way, and (for some unknown reason) gives the try. Completely wrong use of the technology, IMO.

And that's not the only example. The farcical trial of umpire challenges in cricket, when on-the-field rulings got overturned with no evidence whatsoever, was indicative of the difficulties of the system.

 

[The Large One]

On Saturday I saw the perfect example of why a video ref should not be used. In the Lions game, Fourie goes over in the corner for the Saffers. The assistant referee says that he had a foot in touch, then scored, meaning it should be a 5m lineout to the Lions. However the referee, because he's not sure, goes to the video ref. The video ref deliberates for several minutes, sees no compelling evidence either way, and (for some unknown reason) gives the try. Completely wrong use of the technology, IMO.

And that's not the only example. The farcical trial of umpire challenges in cricket, when on-the-field rulings got overturned with no evidence whatsoever, was indicative of the difficulties of the system.

Fair points, but I'll throw this one in playing Devil's Advocate...

Was the problem the system or the application of the system? In other words, were the rules regarding use of video refereeing wrong, or were the rules right but not being used properly?

 

[sten_super]

Fair points, but I'll throw this one in playing Devil's Advocate...

Was the problem the system or the application of the system? In other words, were the rules regarding use of video refereeing wrong, or were the rules right but not being used properly?

Of course it was the application of the rules; but the application is a fundamental part of the rules, and if they can't get that right (they've been in rugby for a while and yet we still see these situations) then surely it suggests that there are seriously difficulties finding a 'correct' way to implement them?

 

[Man of Harveys]

Easy said it all for me: anyone who still thinks this would solve anything is crazy. A foul, say, is by its nature always going to be a matter of interpretation, whether it's by a man on the spot or a man watching a replay. It would solve nothing, except maybe the goal-line thing. But how often is that an issue? One game in ten maybe?

And anyone who thinks that penises like Mark Hughes or Neil Warnock who take such malicious delight in hounding referees would shut up if this was introduced doesn't know them very well.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

On Saturday I saw the perfect example of why a video ref should not be used. In the Lions game, Fourie goes over in the corner for the Saffers. The assistant referee says that he had a foot in touch, then scored, meaning it should be a 5m lineout to the Lions. However the referee, because he's not sure, goes to the video ref. The video ref deliberates for several minutes, sees no compelling evidence either way, and (for some unknown reason) gives the try. Completely wrong use of the technology, IMO.

And that's not the only example. The farcical trial of umpire challenges in cricket, when on-the-field rulings got overturned with no evidence whatsoever, was indicative of the difficulties of the system.

That wasn't exactly how it happened on Saturday.

Rugby has a perfectly good system whereby the referee asks for evidence of a particular thing (in that case EITHER being in touch, or not being in touch). Inexplicably, despite seemingly thinking that the player had gone into touch (and what the touch judge said), the ref asked if there was any evidence that he had - and due to the lack of a suitable camera angle, there wasn't.

Best application is in the NFL - referees on the field rule without giving consideration to the TV, and then if it is challenged, they must find "irrefutable evidence" to the contrary of what was ruled. Challenged by coaches (2 x a half with timeouts as a gamble) as well - this system has only been in place a few years, but has totally embedded itself and adds to the excitement. It basically allows for technology to lessen bad decisions (yet not eradicate them), and there is rarely any controversy when it is used.

 

[Juan Albion]

On Saturday I saw the perfect example of why a video ref should not be used. In the Lions game, Fourie goes over in the corner for the Saffers. The assistant referee says that he had a foot in touch, then scored, meaning it should be a 5m lineout to the Lions. However the referee, because he's not sure, goes to the video ref. The video ref deliberates for several minutes, sees no compelling evidence either way, and (for some unknown reason) gives the try. Completely wrong use of the technology, IMO.

And that's not the only example. The farcical trial of umpire challenges in cricket, when on-the-field rulings got overturned with no evidence whatsoever, was indicative of the difficulties of the system.

That's easily got around by adopting the same attitude as in several other sports: the decision on the pitch stands unless there is conclusive proof that it is definitely wrong.

 

[sten_super]

That wasn't exactly how it happened on Saturday.

Rugby has a perfectly good system whereby the referee asks for evidence of a particular thing (in that case EITHER being in touch, or not being in touch). Inexplicably, despite seemingly thinking that the player had gone into touch (and what the touch judge said), the ref asked if there was any evidence that he had - and due to the lack of a suitable camera angle, there wasn't.

Best application is in the NFL - referees on the field rule without giving consideration to the TV, and then if it is challenged, they must find "irrefutable evidence" to the contrary of what was ruled. Challenged by coaches (2 x a half with timeouts as a gamble) as well - this system has only been in place a few years, but has totally embedded itself and adds to the excitement. It basically allows for technology to lessen bad decisions (yet not eradicate them), and there is rarely any controversy when it is used.

It's not a perfectly good system if, on occasions, it doesn't provide the right result, is it? I accept that it is as a result of human error, but it is exactly this kind of human error that we are trying to eradicate, and if there is scope for human error, what is the point?

I agree with the NFL being the best; not sure where it would fit within football though.

edit: in response to Juan, I'm not sure that would have helped on Saturday. The ref didn't want to make a decision, he wanted to pass the buck to the video ref. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that he was a poor ref (or a good ref having a bad day), but given that poor refs is what we are trying to mitigate for, is there any point when they can still muck up the process?

 

[RexCathedra]

The games where the use of video is successful all involve its employment while the action is stopped. This seems to rule out video review of offsides, at a minimum.

The goal is a different matter, if the technical details can be worked out.

I don't see this as a rule change -- the ball in its entirety still has to be across the plane of the goal mouth, Hackney Marshes or Camp Nou.

It's a difference in the standard of enforcement, like the different grades of referee.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

It's not a perfectly good system if, on occasions, it doesn't provide the right result, is it? I accept that it is as a result of human error, but it is exactly this kind of human error that we are trying to eradicate, and if there is scope for human error, what is the point?

I agree with the NFL being the best; not sure where it would fit within football though.

edit: in response to Juan, I'm not sure that would have helped on Saturday. The ref didn't want to make a decision, he wanted to pass the buck to the video ref. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that he was a poor ref (or a good ref having a bad day), but given that poor refs is what we are trying to mitigate for, is there any point when they can still muck up the process?

Agree with that - I spose my point is that if the ref had gone with what he thought he had seen (as he should do and like I say, its inexplicable that he didn't) then it is a good system.

Improvement I guess would be the NFL system - so he would have actually have had to make a decision on the spot (which presumably would have been a 5m lineout), which could then have been reversed only if there was perfect evidence. However, problem I guess is that given what he did, he probably would have bottled it and awarded the try in that circumstance - hoping the TMO would bail him out.

 

[drew]

Video replays would only undermine what the officials are suppose to be doing in the first place, their jobs.

Don't many of them do that already with some of their decision/indecision making!!!!

I pretty much agree with this - because the technology exists to make it instant - i.e. the moment the ball crosses the line, a tone sounds in the referees/assistant referees ears. I would however stretch it to throw-ins/corners too (again, because it is instant and cannot be argued with).QUOTE]

I agree, that is the only technology that I would accept as it would not interrupt the flow of the game, ie the ref would know the ball has crossed the line and blow for a goal.

the general guidence for all rules in Football are that they apply at all levels, from Champions Leauge to Hackney Marshes. i like this. video replay can only work from the pro level up, and even then outside of the premiership there is unlikly to be sufficient camera coverage to improve the refs view.

however, i do think there should be more retrospective use of video evidence, aimed at cleaning up some of the cheating in the pro game, ie for deliberate diving.

Agree with the retro uses of video but currently Sepp Blatter won't entertain this unless the ref missed the incident entirely. The sooner they give cheats 5-10 game bans for cheating and violence then the sooner their clubs will get them to stop.

 

[BeardyChops]

The fact that there's uncertainty, and the need to get on with the game after a decision has been made make football what it is. And of course getting wound up with poor refereeing decisions is always going to be good for the atmosphere at a game. Anything subject to interpretation shouldn't be done by video ref, I agree.

But goal line video is one case (Brazil were denied an actual goal against USA).
Surely offside could be done in a split second too?

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

Well i'm for it, to a degree. Referees, due to physical restrictions, have to retire just when they are at their peak in regards to experience. I's like to see senior referees miked up and able topass coments to the ref on the pitch. These comments would be just between the 2.

Things are going on all over the pitch especially with players trying to cheat the ref. For somebody else to be able to give the ref a view from a different angle can only help and eradicate some of the more stupid decisions, like that goal that never was during the Watford v Reading game last year.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I don't think video refs are a good idea.

But I don't see why they could not fit sensors in the goal which made a wristband on the ref's arm vibrate when the ball crossed the line.

This wouldn't slow the game down at all but would stop all the over the line but disallowed goals.