TV assistance for Referees

[CAFC Matt]

Do referees need TV assistance? After watching this weekends I think they do

 

[Marc]

only for ball crossing the goal line - otherwise it would slow the game down too much

 

[REDLAND]

No, iffy decisions are whats great about football, if they are going your way obviously

 

[CAFC Matt]

Too many don't though

 

[CHAPPERS]

No, they just need to be better.

The Man City penalty where Sun Jie whatshisface went down was clearly not a penalty. It completely changed the game but the pundits didn't say a word about it.

 

[CAFC Matt]

What would they have said if it had been Leon Knight

 

[fatbadger]

Don't like the idea of TVs being used during a game (have you seen the way it holds up Rugby matches?), but I do think that cheats should, on the basis of after-match TV evidence, be charged with bringing the game into disrepute (or 'gaining an unfair advantage', or something similar) with a ban of, say, 2 or 3 games for the first offence and a hefty, hefty ban for a repeat offence. It's the only way to stop it.

 

[CAFC Matt]

I don't think it will ever be stoppped as they will find a way out of serving the ban and continue cheating

 

[Shizuoka Dolphin]

Not for every decision, but for goals yes, yes and thrice yes!
The fact we don't have cameras in the post looking down on the line for those uncertain moments is incredible. It would take 2 seconds to be checked by the fourth official and you'd eliminate almost instantly dodgy goals which never crossed the line.

 

[Goring Gull]

The Arsenal penalty was scandolous. Pompey should,ve won.

 

[fatbadger]

The Arsenal penalty was scandolous. Pompey should,ve won.

painful as that is to admit ...

 

[Storer68]

Not in favour of TV refs as the on-pitch ref would just bottle every debatable decision back to the man inthe stands and games would take ages to finish. I mean, when was the last time at an international match cricket umpire gave a line decision withouit referring it to the third umpire?

What I think would be good idea (and I thought this one up when watching that cheat Thierry Henry con a epnalty at highbury, would be for their to be an extra four linesman, stationed on each side behind the goal, thgus watching play from front on, rather than behind and the side like most refs, to advise on solely on penalty box decisions ie fouls, encroachment, goals, line decisions etc..

 

[Storer68]

that should read "one stationed on each side behinmd the goal"

 

[CAFC Matt]

Now that is a good idea

 

[Guinness Boy]

Don't like the idea of TVs being used during a game (have you seen the way it holds up Rugby matches?), but I do think that cheats should, on the basis of after-match TV evidence, be charged with bringing the game into disrepute (or 'gaining an unfair advantage', or something similar) with a ban of, say, 2 or 3 games for the first offence and a hefty, hefty ban for a repeat offence. It's the only way to stop it.

Agree and agree. Watched a lot of Super 12 rugby in Oz last series and not only are there decisions that can't be made from TV but it's painfully slow waiting sometimes, especially when you're being sold something at the same time ("and now the decision sponsored by Tooheys New").

If you play or watch cricket you might get a bad lbw or caught behind. If you watch or play football you might be robbed or gifted by the ref. But that's the beauty of sport and long may it continue. TV replays would move it one degree closer to a science from an art.

On the other hand citing people on proven TV evidence after the fact won't slow down the game or take away it's instant nature, it just might make it a bit more sporting with a bit more justice.