Blatter wants TV referrals

[kevo]

Imagine the team that gets the stonewall penalty turned down is BHA, and the opposition that runs the other end and scores is Crystal Palace. Would you complain about the chaos then?

For the number of times it would work for us, it would work against us. But I was thinking the effect on games in general, not individual incidences. The potential for carnage when appeals are made is huge. And don't forget it's often difficult to categorically decide what the correct decision should be even with TV replays. How many times would the incident have to be viewed before a decision could be made - how often have you seen panelists arguing saying yes, it was a pen, or no, it was a dive?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Is that dickhead still head of the governing body? Wonders will never cease.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

Should retitle this thread Blatter wants a ****ing good kicking stupid delusional old ****

 

[BensGrandad]

With most games being recorded on video why not have an ex ref and an ex player watching contentious isues if they agree the video evidence is taken if not stick by refs decision.

 

[edna krabappel]

I've always liked Brian Glanville's description of Blatter as a man who has 50 new ideas a day, 51 of which are useless.

I hear what you're saying, but can't help feeling the suggestion that he has one good idea per day is a quite grotesque exaggeration.

 

[Juan Albion]

I hear what you're saying, but can't help feeling the suggestion that he has one good idea per day is a quite grotesque exaggeration.

Do the maths again.

 

[edna krabappel]

Do the maths again.

Oops

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

This does seem like an overly complicated option for bringing the use of tv footage and replays into use.

A simpler decision- just have a forth official in a room with access to tv footage and replays, the official and ref are miked up and the official can inform the ref of any useful information. If play was stopped the ref could ask the official for a second verdict on any questionable issues.

This option wouldn't significantly increase stoppages, wouldn't further involve players and managers in the refereeing process, and would leave the final decision up to the ref.

Personally I think Sepp has suggested the option of challenges to decisions as he thinks it adds some drama / theatre to proceedings.

 

[kevo]

This does seem like an overly complicated option for bringing the use of tv footage and replays into use.

A simpler decision- just have a forth official in a room with access to tv footage and replays, the official and ref are miked up and the official can inform the ref of any useful information. If play was stopped the ref could ask the official for a second verdict on any questionable issues.

This option wouldn't significantly increase stoppages, wouldn't further involve players and managers in the refereeing process, and would leave the final decision up to the ref.

That would be a better solution, but even then how often does play continue sometimes before the ball goes dead? You can't really allow play to go on for a long time before altering a decision - what if someone scores in the meantime? The ref can already ask the fourth official for clarification on decisions he's not sure about in any case.

 

[gripper stebson]

Here's s thought. An appeal would take a couple of minutes possibly four times a half... ADVERTS!!!!!!

Good thinking Sepp.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

I hear what you're saying, but can't help feeling the suggestion that he has one good idea per day is a quite grotesque exaggeration.

Think you might need to read it again

 

[BensGrandad]

Contentious issues like was the foul insider 8 the box or not and was the goal scorer offside could be solved in seconds as per a try in rugby as the game has stopped automatically. An official watching a recoding could determine that. The problem comes with decisions made or not made while the game is still in progress with no natural break

 

[Jaguar_uk]

Why can't football just do it like they do in rugby?
If the refs not sure then then he could ask for help from replays.
The only problem I can see is that footballers are somewhat less respectful of refs than rugby players and will therefore always badgering the ref for a referral, so maybe it would need to be a carded offence to ask?
On balance I think the use of technology has to be introduced sooner than later to combat the increasing desire by players to con the officials, however the most important part of this process is to make sure that Blatter has nothing whatsoever to do with the process.
Let us all pray that the rest of FIFA have the balls to vote this idiot out next time around.

 

[Acker79]

This does seem like an overly complicated option for bringing the use of tv footage and replays into use.

A simpler decision- just have a forth official in a room with access to tv footage and replays, the official and ref are miked up and the official can inform the ref of any useful information. If play was stopped the ref could ask the official for a second verdict on any questionable issues.

This option wouldn't significantly increase stoppages, wouldn't further involve players and managers in the refereeing process, and would leave the final decision up to the ref.

Personally I think Sepp has suggested the option of challenges to decisions as he thinks it adds some drama / theatre to proceedings.

But it's not the referee's final decision, is it? If he isn't seeing the TV replays, he is relying on someone else's description of what they saw. He is relying on this fifth official (the fourth is by the dugouts) to define whether a challenge is 'careless', 'reckless', or 'excessive force'. This goes against the laws of the game which state that a challenge is ruled a foul if "in the opinion of the referee" a challenge is careless, reckless or uses excessive force.

We see all the time incidents that are borderline, and one referee/pundit/fan will say it is a foul, another say it isn't. One will say it was worthy of a yellow, one say it isn't. One will say red, another yellow. The referee might view a challenge as "strong, but fair" and the fifth official may view the same incident as "careless".

Then you also have the sense that it is behind closed doors. Players, and fans will become agitated if the referee keeps appearing to change his mind for no apparent reason, calling play back to a prior incident, etc. Players will start to second guess the ref about each decision, asking if he's sure or if they should wait for the real ref to tell him he got it wrong again. etc.

It needs to be transparent (i.e. it can't be something discreet like an official in a room out of site, talking to the ref through his headset so that no one knows the communication is happening - look how much trouble some pundits have with the officials behind the goal in the europa league and their ability to communicate with the ref).

The ref needs to see the video himself.

 

[The Wizard]

**** off Blatter.

 

[GT49er]

This idea is from the old fool who was adamant that goal line technology was unnecessary and would ruin the game until the foolishness of his words was very publicly rubbed in during that England - Germany match (not saying it would have altered the outcome of the match - but a team that goes into half time having been pegged back from 2-0 to two all has a mightily different mind-set to one that is happily riding its luck!)

WEe already have the fourth official (in 1st. class matches, anyway). Instead of bothering to see if the manager has stepped two mm outside his box, why can't he sit in the stands, watching it on TV, with a radio link to the ref so if / when the ref makes an obvious howler he can just have a quick word in his ear? Job done!

 

[GT49er]

This does seem like an overly complicated option for bringing the use of tv footage and replays into use.

A simpler decision- just have a forth official in a room with access to tv footage and replays, the official and ref are miked up and the official can inform the ref of any useful information. If play was stopped the ref could ask the official for a second verdict on any questionable issues.

This option wouldn't significantly increase stoppages, wouldn't further involve players and managers in the refereeing process, and would leave the final decision up to the ref.

Personally I think Sepp has suggested the option of challenges to decisions as he thinks it adds some drama / theatre to proceedings.

There would only be a possible need for a 'Forth' official if the jocks vote 'Yes'.

 

[GT49er]

...........by and large!

 

[kevo]

WEe already have the fourth official (in 1st. class matches, anyway). Instead of bothering to see if the manager has stepped two mm outside his box, why can't he sit in the stands, watching it on TV, with a radio link to the ref so if / when the ref makes an obvious howler he can just have a quick word in his ear? Job done!

That's far too sensible a suggestion.