TV Replays

W

Wardy

NSC's Benefits Guru

Oct 9, 2003

11,219

In front of the PC

• Jun 25, 2004

• #1

So should we have them. Was a big discussion at work today saying that if we had TV replays like in cricket then we would have been given the goal. As much as that might be true I for one think that they would be a bad idea. It would interupt the flow of the game.

But what do you think?

 

G

Gullet

New member

Feb 8, 2004

1,277

Bevendean

• Jun 25, 2004

• #2

Lets not forget TV replays can work against you as well as for you. Lets keep it as it is.

 

Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy

Jul 5, 2003

71,988

Living In a Box

• Jun 25, 2004

• #3

No - football is a flowing game not like cricket.

Next you'd be having adverts etc, games in 4 quarters etc

 

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Jul 21, 2003

35,332

• Jun 25, 2004

• #4

If the flow of the game has stopped, say due to a penalty being given, theres no good reason why there shouldnt be TV replays. Rugby has this limited, critical-desicion-only use of replays and it doesnt interupt the flow of the game (albeit a slow flow).

 

C

chez

Johnny Byrne-The Greatest

Jul 5, 2003

10,042

Wherever The Mood Takes Me

• Jun 25, 2004

• #5

If its a big decision then the game is usually stopped for a minute or two anyway due to players argueing with the ref. In that amount of time it would be easy to have a reply.

 

Sam

Formerly "Sambo"

Jul 22, 2003

2,438

Oxfordshire

• Jun 26, 2004

• #6

You would need to decide what to replay, would the ref call the video ref only on tackles in the penalty box, or on tackles all over the field, as a foul at one end can result in a goal about 5 seconds later? It would need to be limited to goals only, say "has the ball crossed the line?". What would be done about corners, would the ref replay to see if it was a corner or a goal kick, as a corner could change the whole game (ie a goal), whereas a goal kick wouldn't usually result in a goal. It is a tough one to call, as football is completely different to rugby and cricket.

I would say that video refs should not be used, even though we would have more than likely have been given the goal against Portugal.

 

I

interjambo

New member

Mar 22, 2004

146

Milano, Italia

• Jun 26, 2004

• #7

Wardywonderland said:

So should we have them. Was a big discussion at work today saying that if we had TV replays like in cricket then we would have been given the goal. As much as that might be true I for one think that they would be a bad idea. It would interupt the flow of the game.

But what do you think?

Click to expand...

You wouldn't have been given the goal after a replay. I honestly can't understand how anyone can fail to see the clear foul by Terry on the keeper.

For what it's worth, Italian TV commentators immediately called the foul and the sports press made little mention of any controversy.

In certain other circumstances, video evidence might be worthwhile, such as the time when the Portuguese effort appeared to cross the line.

 

Northstander

Well-known member

Oct 13, 2003

14,028

• Jun 26, 2004

• #8

No! Leaving it at that!

 

G

Gwylan

Well-known member

Jul 5, 2003

31,360

Uffern

• Jun 26, 2004

• #9

It's worth pointing out that despite the use of video cameras in rugby and cricket there have been several rows in the last few years where the video evidence has proved to be inconclusive.

Just take the Terry 'foul' on Ricardo. Having seen the video evidence from all angles, there are some people who think it was a foul and those who don't - so the use of cameras there wouldn't have stopped the argument and we'd have to put with unnecessary delays.

I say leave things as they are: sometimes you get the breaks, sometimes you don't. It evens out in the long run.

 

R

rool

Well-known member

Jul 10, 2003

6,031

• Jun 26, 2004

• #10

There is no way that Terry 'fouled' the keeper. It is just this stupid thing which is between refs that you cannot so much as fart next to a keeper without a freekick being given. Challenges like that go on every single time two players go for a header and, I reckon, 95% of them do not result in free kicks. the goalkeeper is already at an advantage being able to reach an extra couple feet up with his hands. Although I will say that it is becoming noticeable that defenders are getting more protection these days from challenging forwards in the air than the other way round.

All that said it is the same for everyone so there is no grumble about it. I just wish Eufa and Fifa would look at this ridiculous situation and come up with a realistic directive about what constitutes a foul against a keeper or be open and write into the laws that any contact on a keeper jumping is a foul because basically that is what they are playing to.

 

D

dougdeep

New member

May 9, 2004

37,732

SUNNY SEAFORD

• Jun 26, 2004

• #11

I think the rules of the game must be the same at all levels,
so if you allow t.v evidence in internationals,then you'll have
to have it in every ground in the country!

 

C

cheshunt seagull

Well-known member

Jul 5, 2003

2,500

• Jun 26, 2004

• #12

No.

- Human error/home-team bias on the part of ref is part of the game and things usually even out over time.
-The game should be conducted in the same way at all levels
- The game should flow, there aren't the natural pauses you get in cricket, American Football etc.
- Who the hell would we use as a scapegoat/what would we talk about?

The only time that I think that it could be used is evidence in disciplinary hearings.