Why Video Technology Is Not The Answer

fredthered · 15th April 2010, 02:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharky7

Black and White incidents, like a ball crossing the goal line? yeah FIFA threw that out too. Give me a good argument as to why we couldn't introduce goal line technology?

As a former referee, i can give you a precise reason why you cant use TV technology for incidents like a ball crossing the line.

Football is hte only sport that doesnt stop when a potential "point scoring" situation occurs.

In tennis, when you win a point, the player can then object and before the next point is played for they can analyse whether the point was awarded fairly.

In cricket, if a player is judged out, before play is started again, the umpire has the ability to check whether his decision is right or wrong.

In Rugby when a try is being debated, the play has already stopped, and before play recommences the referee can analyse whether it was indeed a try or not.

In football however the play doesnt stop. If a ball bounces down off the crossbar, the play isnt stopped so the referee doesnt have the chance to analyse anything. The only way you can perform a check owuld be the next time the ball wasnt in active play, which in some cases could be ten minutes later.

If the play was stopped when there was a dubious situation, then it could mean the defending team who have hte ball in their posession have to stop, the referee then realises it wasnt a goal, and they have lost their momentum, thus they've been penalised unfairly.

Let me give you a prime example of why it cannto be done

United v Spurs 2005. Carroll drops the ball and it goes over his own goal line. Everyone could see it was a goal, but the referee.. Play continues.. Supposing United then go upfield and score. The ball then is dead and at htis point the referee has a chance to see whats really happened.. He realises the ball has crossed the line. What then ?

Mistakes have been made by referees for years, and its part and parcel of the game. Some go for you. Some clearly dont..

I see no reason why theres a need to change it, and more importantly, there is no possible way to change it without totally changing hte rules of hte game.

MarkC · 15th April 2010, 02:19

If it's going to happen why not just let teams stop it if they appeal it and if it isn't then give the opposing team a free kick say 10 or 20 yards further down the pitch than when the game was stopped. I know it isn't an ideal situation and can see your point but as long as it isn't abused then i'm sure it would be in everyones interest at some point.

gbgary · 15th April 2010, 03:04

i'm for it...in a limited scope. give each team a set number of appeals, say two per half...or even just one per half. the appeal can only be made after the run of play is over (and that doesn't mean a dead ball. it could be during the next lull in play). it can't be called during a counter attack for example. confirmation of a goal scored or denied (or is that the same thing...lol), offside, hand balls, and whether a called foul is in or outside the box, being the only reviewable incidents. leave actual foul calling to the ref.

what say you?

beardsleybob · 15th April 2010, 03:26

Can't let technology into football. It'll just turn on us

RedThaiDevils#7 · 15th April 2010, 06:45

I like the idea of challenges just like tennis. I mean sometimes decisions are just too unfair, remember Scholes Goal Vs Porto ? Drogba Offside ? Henry's goal costed a nation to have a chance to go to the world cup. All these could have been helped if you allowed challenges, I'd say give 2 challenges per each team per match. As of course it is a rareity so we do not have to challenge everything. Just the real lame decisions.

ciderman9000000 · 15th April 2010, 09:02

askabob, why should anyone counter your arguments? They're not new or original arguments, just repetition of the old ones. Also, your arguments aren't all that coherent anyway. For example, your argument concerning the subjectivity of decisions is completely irrelevant; video technology would give the officials the opportunity to actually see the things that they are all too often missing, it's not supposed to make their decisions for them, but simply allow them to better make decisions for themselves. What difference does it make whether that decision is something that could be interperated objective or subjectively? Either way, with video technology the decision will have a far greater chance of being made correctly, and that's the whole point. Then, your argument over time delays. You've made it as if all this has never been thought of before; but you're wrong, it has. There are loads of different methods of implementation that would reduce delays and allow the game to continue to flow naturally; a few have been repeated in this thread, and there are many more; why are you trying to make out as if there are none and it would be all just be impossible? Again, your apparent ignorance on the subject causes your argument to become irrelevant. The kids in the park is the poorest of all your arguments. How would video technology affect them in any way whatsoever? It doesn't stop anyone playing tennis or rugby or snooker at amateur level, does it? Why the hell then would it affect anyone playing football? You're clutching at straws on that one, probably because your previous arguments were so ill-conceived and badly put, but clutching at straws nevertheless. Your argument concerning the cost of goal-line tech is uneducated and troglodytic (what expertise have you that qualify you to be making decisions on the effective cost of the technology?). Your referees points/league/promotions suggestion is counter-productive and would only serve to increase egotism rather than objectivity. All in all, your arguments are weak and wholly lacking in substance. I'm not all for video tech myself; i can see there would be complications; but i believe that those complications could be ironed-out eventually through trials and proper testing, and the game would probably be better for it. To dismiss it outright though, based on what you've put forward in your OP, would be just madness; your amateurish speculations and declarations add absolutely nothing whatsoever to the debate, and are really not worth the time it takes to read them. Countered enough for you?

ciderman9000000 · 15th April 2010, 09:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

As a former referee, i can give you a precise reason why you cant use TV technology for incidents like a ball crossing the line.

Football is hte only sport that doesnt stop when a potential "point scoring" situation occurs.

In tennis, when you win a point, the player can then object and before the next point is played for they can analyse whether the point was awarded fairly.

In cricket, if a player is judged out, before play is started again, the umpire has the ability to check whether his decision is right or wrong.

In Rugby when a try is being debated, the play has already stopped, and before play recommences the referee can analyse whether it was indeed a try or not.

In football however the play doesnt stop. If a ball bounces down off the crossbar, the play isnt stopped so the referee doesnt have the chance to analyse anything. The only way you can perform a check owuld be the next time the ball wasnt in active play, which in some cases could be ten minutes later.

If the play was stopped when there was a dubious situation, then it could mean the defending team who have hte ball in their posession have to stop, the referee then realises it wasnt a goal, and they have lost their momentum, thus they've been penalised unfairly.

Let me give you a prime example of why it cannto be done

United v Spurs 2005. Carroll drops the ball and it goes over his own goal line. Everyone could see it was a goal, but the referee.. Play continues.. Supposing United then go upfield and score. The ball then is dead and at htis point the referee has a chance to see whats really happened.. He realises the ball has crossed the line. What then ?

Mistakes have been made by referees for years, and its part and parcel of the game. Some go for you. Some clearly dont..

I see no reason why theres a need to change it, and more importantly, there is no possible way to change it without totally changing hte rules of hte game.

It'd be another official that reviews the cameras, you plank, not the referee. Play would go on as normal whilst the video-official checks the goal-line camera; if the ball crossed the line then he informs the ref that it was a goal and the ref blows and awards it, if it did not cross the line then he does nothing and play goes on regardless. You seem to have made the same mistake as askabob in his OP, you've looked at the problem with blinkers and without any kind of lateral thinking, blind the countless possibilities and solutions that lie just out of reach of your intellectal grasp. Plank.

Dyslexic Untied · 15th April 2010, 09:18

I agree with the thread starter.

Also for those saying that goals can be checked for offside. Obviously they can, but what happens when the referee blows for offside when the player is onside, or atleast his team thinks he is onside.

Do you blow the whistle and check the TV. If he is onside, then what do you do? How many times will a team get a chance to claim onside?

Or do you not blow your whistle when you think it might be onside and check the TV later, after the attack is finished, or perhaps during? That would leave a refereeing delay of about 10 -15 seconds for every attack including a possible offside situation. Imagine that vs. Milan with Inzaghi.

Stretch · 15th April 2010, 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciderman9000000

It'd be another official that reviews the cameras, you plank, not the referee. Play would go on as normal whilst the video-official checks the goal-line camera; if the ball crossed the line then he informs the ref that it was a goal and the ref blows and awards it, if it did not cross the line then he does nothing and play goes on regardless. You seem to have made the same mistake as askabob in his OP, you've looked at the problem with blinkers and without any kind of lateral thinking, blind the countless possibilities and solutions that lie just out of reach of your intellectal grasp. Plank.

What happens if United scored before the video ref could establish the ball crossed the line? Are you really telling me that 'play must continue as normal' and after say 20-30 seconds once the video ref is confident he can pass on the correct information to the on field ref nothing will happen? What if someone get's sent off in those seconds? A second yellow card? The player's team could then argue that the player would not have been sent of if the ref blew the whistle immediately. To avoid this you would have to stop the game completely once there is a contentious issue at hand. And how do you determine it being contentious when you as the ref obviously thinks it fairly straightforward?

Also, askabob mentioned costs of the technology which is a fair point. Are you going to have cameras that are permanent or ones that are in rotation? If a game's not televised live do you bother? If the cameras are going to be permanent then how will smaller clubs (Championship, League 1) cope with these costs?

There are so many issues at hand and to simply brush it off is silly. I'm not against it but I just think the average football fan thinks it is as simple as saying 'here we go, we will use video technology from now on!'. It is not and we need to be careful of not changing the game too much because one thing is for certain, the rules of the game will have to be adjusted considerably to incorporate video technology and possible 'grey/troublesome' situations.

ciderman9000000 · 15th April 2010, 09:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruben

I agree with the thread starter.

Also for those saying that goals can be checked for offside. Obviously they can, but what happens when the referee blows for offside when the player is onside, or atleast his team thinks he is onside.

Do you blow the whistle and check the TV. If he is onside, then what do you do? How many times will a team get a chance to claim onside?

Or do you not blow your whistle when you think it might be onside and check the TV later, after the attack is finished, or perhaps during? That would leave a refereeing delay of about 10 -15 seconds for every attack including a possible offside situation. Imagine that vs. Milan with Inzaghi.

Well one solution, and a simple one, would be that the referee doesn't blow for offside. Instead, when he sees what he think may be an offside, he presses his button to signal the video-official. The video-official - an expert on the technology who can get the exact replay he wants on-screen in half a second - then quickly reviews the footage and tells the referee what the correct decision should be. It should only take a few seconds total, and the game has gone on in the meantime, but the correct decision would almost always be made. He gives offside, or he lets it play on. Simple.

There are many different ways of implementing this. Should the ref or a linesman see what he deems to be an 'obvious' offside, then they could use their own common-sense and make the call without the video-official's verdict; it wouldn't have to be on every decision.

Or, if the ref misses an offside completely and doesn't signal for a video officiation, the video-official could have the authority to act without that signal - he could be constantly reviewing dubious looking plays and the ref just waits until he advises him on something that's been missed.

The point is this - you cannot rightly just call the implementation impossible; there's always a solution (usually a number of solutions) to any problem or scenario.

ciderman9000000 · 15th April 2010, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch

What happens if United scored before the video ref could establish the ball crossed the line? Are you really telling me that 'play must continue as normal' and after say 20-30 seconds once the video ref is confident he can pass on the correct information to the on field ref nothing will happen? What if someone get's sent off in those seconds? A second yellow card? The player's team could then argue that the player would not have been sent of if the ref blew the whistle immediately. To avoid this you would have to stop the game completely once there is a contentious issue at hand. And how do you determine it being contentious when you as the ref obviously thinks it fairly straightforward?

Also, askabob mentioned costs of the technology which is a fair point. Are you going to have cameras that are permanent or ones that are in rotation? If a game's not televised live do you bother? If the cameras are going to be permanent then how will smaller clubs (Championship, League 1) cope with these costs?

There are so many issues at hand and to simply brush it off is silly. I'm not against it but I just think the average football fan thinks it is as simple as saying 'here we go, we will use video technology from now on!'. It is not and we need to be careful of not changing the game too much because one thing is for certain, the rules of the game will have to be adjusted considerably to incorporate video technology and possible 'grey/troublesome' situations.

Why do you assume it would take 20/30seconds to decide whether the ball crossed the line? It's not a difficult decision to make, and an official trained to a high level at using the replay functions could see what he needs to at the touch of a button - or even a computer could analyze the footage in nanoseconds. For decisions that may take longer, then of course you'd have to have rules for red-card offences, goals etc. that happen in the meantime; but your point that teams may argue that it happened after the goal is mute - the rules are the rules - either red-card offences would be still be punished or they wouldn't, goals just wouldn't stand if they were scored after an offence - how could a team argue if the rules of the game clearly state one way or another?

I'm not suggesting that it's silly to question how it would be implemented, just that it's silly to simply say that it's impossible and could not be implemented. There are always solutions. If i can sit here when i've just got out of bed and think up solutions to the problems of video-tech, then i'm 100% certain that someone more intelligent that me that has been employed and given a year or two to think them up can do a much better and thorough job of it.

As for the cost, of course there would be a cost, but askabob is telling everyone that the cost would be too great and as such not worth it - but has no idea what the cost would be! Obviously lower-league teams would not have the facilities in place to cope with video-tech, so a line would have to be drawn - say, Championship level or above - at which it becomes a requirement; the lower teams would catch up eventually as camera technology progresses and becomes more affordable. At the end of the day, it's only cameras, they're not nuclear nano-satellites ffs!

Stretch · 15th April 2010, 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciderman9000000

Well one solution, and a simple one, would be that the referee doesn't blow for offside. Instead, when he sees what he think may be an offside, he presses his button to signal the video-official. The video-official - an expert on the technology who can get the exact replay he wants on-screen in half a second - then quickly reviews the footage and tells the referee what the correct decision should be. It should only take a few seconds total, and the game has gone on in the meantime, but the correct decision would almost always be made. He gives offside, or he lets it play on. Simple.

There are many different ways of implementing this. Should the ref or a linesman see what he deems to be an 'obvious' offside, then they could use their own common-sense and make the call without the video-official's verdict; it wouldn't have to be on every decision.

Or, if the ref misses an offside completely and doesn't signal for a video officiation, the video-official could have the authority to act without that signal - he could be constantly reviewing dubious looking plays and the ref just waits until he advises him on something that's been missed.

The point is this - you cannot rightly just call the implementation impossible; there's always a solution (usually a number of solutions) to any problem or scenario.

Have you considered the training and equipment involved for all this? You will have to train a referee to do all this. For Rugby they request replays from the director and even in that even that they only get the replays about 10-15 seconds later. Thing is in Rugby the game has been stopped and this is not necessarily the case in football. You need to consider all the costs involved in training the officials and then purchasing the equipment which will have to be used for every game.

Stretch · 15th April 2010, 10:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciderman9000000

Why do you assume it would take 20/30seconds to decide whether the ball crossed the line? It's not a difficult decision to make, and an official trained to a high level at using the replay functions could see what he needs to at the touch of a button - or even a computer could analyze the footage in nanoseconds. For decisions that may take longer, then of course you'd have to have rules for red-card offences, goals etc. that happen in the meantime; but your point that teams may argue that it happened after the goal is mute - the rules are the rules - either red-card offences would be still be punished or they wouldn't, goals just wouldn't stand if they were scored after an offence - how could a team argue if the rules of the game clearly state one way or another?

I'm not suggesting that it's silly to question how it would be implemented, just that it's silly to simply say that it's impossible and could not be implemented. There are always solutions. If i can sit here when i've just got out of bed and think up solutions to the problems of video-tech, then i'm 100% certain that someone more intelligent that me that has been employed and given a year or two to think them up can do a much better and thorough job of it.

As for the cost, of course there would be a cost, but askabob is telling everyone that the cost would be too great and as such not worth it - but has no idea what the cost would be! Obviously lower-league teams would not have the facilities in place to cope with video-tech, so a line would have to be drawn - say, Championship level or above - at which it becomes a requirement; the lower teams would catch up eventually as camera technology progresses and becomes more affordable. At the end of the day, it's only cameras, they're not nuclear nano-satellites ffs!

My assumption is based on how video technology is currently applied in other sport codes. That is good base to use to judge just how long this will take. And I can bet you it won't be as quick as you would like to think. There will be delays in certain instances. What happens then? Like I just pointed out int he previous post, officials are not trained to high a technical level and usually get the replays from the TV director. How will this system work? Who's going to pick up the bill for training the officials? The equipment needed for this? etc

Again, I'm not saying it is impossible but it certainly is not half as simple you would like us to believe. And as for the lower league sides, why should they be subjected to the referees decision and not have the same benefit as top sides? Who makes the decision as to where the line is drawn? The local FA, Confederation FA or FIFA?

These are all the things you need to consider is all I'm saying. It will not happen overnight. It will take a lot of investment, training and trials for this to get of the ground in the first place.

ciderman9000000 · 15th April 2010, 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch

Have you considered the training and equipment involved for all this? You will have to train a referee to do all this. For Rugby they request replays from the director and even in that even that they only get the replays about 10-15 seconds later. Thing is in Rugby the game has been stopped and this is not necessarily the case in football. You need to consider all the costs involved in training the officials and then purchasing the equipment which will have to be used for every game.

The equipment would be little different from that that is already used on a regular basis, just cameras and screens - training someone to use a screen isn't rocket-surgery, mate, Andy Grey does it fine ffs. There would be a cost, of course there would, but without knowing what that cost would be, how can you make a decision on whether or not it would be worth it? We should stick to the actual rules and style of the implementation here rather than debating costs.

ciderman9000000 · 15th April 2010, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch

My assumption is based on how video technology is currently applied in other sport codes. That is good base to use to judge just how long this will take. And I can bet you it won't be as quick as you would like to think. There will be delays in certain instances. What happens then? Like I just pointed out int he previous post, officials are not trained to high a technical level and usually get the replays from the TV director. How will this system work? Who's going to pick up the bill for training the officials? The equipment needed for this? etc

Again, I'm not saying it is impossible but it certainly is not half as simple you would like us to believe. And as for the lower league sides, why should they be subjected to the referees decision and not have the same benefit as top sides? Who makes the decision as to where the line is drawn? The local FA, Confederation FA or FIFA?

These are all the things you need to consider is all I'm saying. It will not happen overnight. It will take a lot of investment, training and trials for this to get of the ground in the first place.

I'm not saying it's simple either. But just saying, 'What happens when such-and-such happens? What then?' is not a good argument against for me; someone just has to decide what would happen, and then that's what would happen. I'm assuming that, if ever video-tech is embraced, it would be a gradual introduction, probably beginning with goal-line tech, and, as such, rule changes/costs incurred etc. would also also be a gradual affair, there wont be any world-shattering changes. It seems entirely doable, that's all i'm saying.

Stretch · 15th April 2010, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciderman9000000

I'm not saying it's simple either. But just saying, 'What happens when such-and-such happens? What then?' is not a good argument against for me; someone just has to decide what would happen, and then that's what would happen. I'm assuming that, if ever video-tech is embraced, it would be a gradual introduction, probably beginning with goal-line tech, and, as such, rule changes/costs incurred etc. would also also be a gradual affair, there wont be any world-shattering changes. It seems entirely doable, that's all i'm saying.

Fair points mate, it is not an argument against video tech but rather a caution I think. I think askabob is a bit to drastic in his conclusion that it is 'not the answer'. It can be the answer, just a complicated one with many pages of theorems.

ciderman9000000 · 15th April 2010, 11:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch

Fair points mate, it is not an argument against video tech but rather a caution I think. I think askabob is a bit to drastic in his conclusion that it is 'not the answer'. It can be the answer, just a complicated one with many pages of theorems.

Yep.

Dyslexic Untied · 15th April 2010, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciderman9000000

Well one solution, and a simple one, would be that the referee doesn't blow for offside. Instead, when he sees what he think may be an offside, he presses his button to signal the video-official. The video-official - an expert on the technology who can get the exact replay he wants on-screen in half a second - then quickly reviews the footage and tells the referee what the correct decision should be. It should only take a few seconds total, and the game has gone on in the meantime, but the correct decision would almost always be made. He gives offside, or he lets it play on. Simple.

There are many different ways of implementing this. Should the ref or a linesman see what he deems to be an 'obvious' offside, then they could use their own common-sense and make the call without the video-official's verdict; it wouldn't have to be on every decision.

Or, if the ref misses an offside completely and doesn't signal for a video officiation, the video-official could have the authority to act without that signal - he could be constantly reviewing dubious looking plays and the ref just waits until he advises him on something that's been missed.

The point is this - you cannot rightly just call the implementation impossible; there's always a solution (usually a number of solutions) to any problem or scenario.

That means that almost every offside will result in a 10-15 seconds of play that has to be played over again. Imagine what happens in such a short period of time on a football pitch.

And imagine how many offsides are called during a game, almost all of them close and hard to tell.

Milan play the ball to Inzaghi, the ref thinks he may be offside so he signals his fourth official, Vidic stops Inzaghi and plays the ball forward to Rooney. Rooney himself might be offside, so the ref again signals his fourth official.

The fourth official has now had five seconds to make a call on the first offside, and before he concludes Rooney puts the ball in the goal for United Now the ref has to go back and see if a) Inzaghi is offside, b) if he is, then what do you do? c) if he is not, then you have to go back and see if Rooney is offside or not. Add in a freekick situation, a yellow or red card situation etc. and it will get messy.

ciderman9000000 · 15th April 2010, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruben

That means that almost every offside will result in a 10-15 seconds of play that has to be played over again. Imagine what happens in such a short period of time on a football pitch.

And imagine how many offsides are called during a game, almost all of them close and hard to tell.

Milan play the ball to Inzaghi, the ref thinks he may be offside so he signals his fourth official, Vidic stops Inzaghi and plays the ball forward to Rooney. Rooney himself might be offside, so the ref again signals his fourth official.

The fourth official has now had five seconds to make a call on the first offside, and before he concludes Rooney puts the ball in the goal for United Now the ref has to go back and see if a) Inzaghi is offside, b) if he is, then what do you do? c) if he is not, then you have to go back and see if Rooney is offside or not. Add in a freekick situation, a yellow or red card situation etc. and it will get messy.

That's easy. Whether or not Inzaghi was offside is irrelevant because there's an advantage to United, then, if Rooney was onside the goal stands, but if he was offside the goal is disallowed and a freekick is awarded. Any serious fouls committed during open play, i.e. before the whistle has blown, could be treated as normal and cards given accordingly. Why is this so hard a concept to understand?

I'm not suggesting that this is the only way it could work, or even the best way, or even that i think it should be brought in at all; i'm simply saying that it could work, that it's possible and there are ways of doing it. To claim that it's impossible is just wrong. All you've done is point out a difficulty in regulation that would have to be addressed before the technology could be implemented, but there's no reason why that difficulty - and any others - could not be addressed. As i said above, the introduction of video-tech would be a gradual one, we'd never go from no technological aids one season to reviewing every single action on the pitch the next; goal-line technology would be a good place to start, and it would be pretty easy to implement and regulate, if that works then it could be taken a step further, and so on until we're at a stage in which the majority of major decisions are made correctly, fairly, and without dispute.

MrK · 15th April 2010, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch

My assumption is based on how video technology is currently applied in other sport codes. That is good base to use to judge just how long this will take. And I can bet you it won't be as quick as you would like to think. There will be delays in certain instances. What happens then? Like I just pointed out int he previous post, officials are not trained to high a technical level and usually get the replays from the TV director. How will this system work? Who's going to pick up the bill for training the officials? The equipment needed for this? etc

Again, I'm not saying it is impossible but it certainly is not half as simple you would like us to believe. And as for the lower league sides, why should they be subjected to the referees decision and not have the same benefit as top sides? Who makes the decision as to where the line is drawn? The local FA, Confederation FA or FIFA?

These are all the things you need to consider is all I'm saying. It will not happen overnight. It will take a lot of investment, training and trials for this to get of the ground in the first place.

There already exists a disparity between officiating aids at the highest and lowest levels of football. Premier League referees are already wearing ear pieces to communicate wirelessly with their assistants, and I dunno how far down the leagues that goes, but I'd be pretty surprised to see a sunday league official using that kind of gear. People say football should be the same from the very top right down to the kids playing in the park, but the kids in the park don't even have a referee, nevermind referee aids!

The cost probably isn't as big a deal as a lot of people think, I couldn't take a stab at an actual figure required to fully develop a suitable system, or how much it would cost to install it at a football ground, but considering the amount of money that's in football these days I think it would pale in significance. Before a team can even get into the football league they need to have a stadium that meets certain standards, and the cost of that would be substantially higher than the likely 'cost-per-club' for this sort of technology.

Ace · 15th April 2010, 20:43

This whole debate about how "expensive" this technology is... Absolute idiocy. They already have hundreds of cameras covering every angle of the field at all times. When there has ever been a goal line debate, the replay is shown from the goal line camera and it is completely cut and dry whether it is a goal or not.

So don't tell me its going to be expensive.

Snow · 16th April 2010, 05:12

I'd like the video tech to be used on two occasions. Controversial goals, ball in or out, hand of god. The extreme cases.
And things that deserve a straight red but the ref misses it. There too many screw ups with the FA regarding those decisions and it'd be easier to deal with it on pitch.

The challenge idea is a great one as well. That way the managers can only blame themselves if they screw things up. Takes pressure off the refs as well.

fredthered · 16th April 2010, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciderman9000000

It'd be another official that reviews the cameras, you plank, not the referee. Play would go on as normal whilst the video-official checks the goal-line camera; if the ball crossed the line then he informs the ref that it was a goal and the ref blows and awards it, if it did not cross the line then he does nothing and play goes on regardless. You seem to have made the same mistake as askabob in his OP, you've looked at the problem with blinkers and without any kind of lateral thinking, blind the countless possibilities and solutions that lie just out of reach of your intellectal grasp. Plank.

Ok numbnuts,

SO whilst the referees assistant is reviewing the play, what happens if the other team then go up the pitch and score. What does the referee do then ?

Does he drag play all the way back ?

Just look at the world cup final in 1966. They still cant decide now if hte ball crossed the line, and every bit of TV technology has been used...

By your argument, the world cup could have been given to England and suddenly if someone comes up and realises it hadnt crossed they get all the players back, dig up Bobby Moore and restart the game....

Lets look at another situation..

If a contentious decision occurs then then what happens to the period of play in between it occuring and hte referee being told. Does that count as active play or not.. If it was indeed a goal, then anything that happens in between the incident and the referee being told it was a goal becomes non active. In effect it hasnt happened.

So think about this.

United v City.. United shoot. It could have crossed the line. The referee isnt sure so waves play on. The assistant in the mean time is looking at the camera to see if it did in fact cross the line. WHilst hes doing that, Rooney clatters into the keeper and breaks his leg. The referee then gives ROoney a red card and awards a free kick. Suddenly the assistant comes back and says that it was in fact a goal.

WHAT DOES THE REFEREE DO ABOUT ROONEY !!!

Hes just sent him off, and a keeper is lying there with a broken leg. But by your argument because it was indeed a goal, what occured afterwards actually didnt happen because play should have been stopped after the goal..

So its actually you that isnt thinking laterally and logically..

fredthered · 16th April 2010, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciderman9000000

Why do you assume it would take 20/30seconds to decide whether the ball crossed the line? !

They still cant decided after 44 years if the ball crossed the line in hte world cup final..

If they cant decide after 44 years, then I think its a fair assumption to make that there could be cases where 20-30 seconds are needed.

el eric · 16th April 2010, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

As a former referee, i can give you a precise reason why you cant use TV technology for incidents like a ball crossing the line.

Football is hte only sport that doesnt stop when a potential "point scoring" situation occurs.

In tennis, when you win a point, the player can then object and before the next point is played for they can analyse whether the point was awarded fairly.

In cricket, if a player is judged out, before play is started again, the umpire has the ability to check whether his decision is right or wrong.

In Rugby when a try is being debated, the play has already stopped, and before play recommences the referee can analyse whether it was indeed a try or not.

In football however the play doesnt stop. If a ball bounces down off the crossbar, the play isnt stopped so the referee doesnt have the chance to analyse anything. The only way you can perform a check owuld be the next time the ball wasnt in active play, which in some cases could be ten minutes later.

If the play was stopped when there was a dubious situation, then it could mean the defending team who have hte ball in their posession have to stop, the referee then realises it wasnt a goal, and they have lost their momentum, thus they've been penalised unfairly.

Let me give you a prime example of why it cannto be done

United v Spurs 2005. Carroll drops the ball and it goes over his own goal line. Everyone could see it was a goal, but the referee.. Play continues.. Supposing United then go upfield and score. The ball then is dead and at htis point the referee has a chance to see whats really happened.. He realises the ball has crossed the line. What then ?

Mistakes have been made by referees for years, and its part and parcel of the game. Some go for you. Some clearly dont..

I see no reason why theres a need to change it, and more importantly, there is no possible way to change it without totally changing hte rules of hte game.

Yeah, I agree with all of this

Football wouldnt be the game we all love if there where stopages. Bad decisions by the ref are part and parcel of the game. Back in October, even after Henrys handball, i said that video replays just wouldnt work in football and I'm still convinced.

Maybe if technolgy allowed some sort of chip in the ball to " sense " if it crossed the line, that could be a runner. There is not much I agree with Sepp Blatter about ( the man is a twat ) but hopefully he stands his ground on Video evidence.

Havak · 16th April 2010, 14:51

"Slowing the game down" is the biggest bullshit anyone can come up with. When there's a red card, or penalty given, or of course, a goal scored, the game is almost always stopped for upwards of a minute anyway. With players surrounding the ref to argue their case when there's no chance of a decision being changed, or players celebrating when a goal is scored. Video technology only needs to be viewed by another official while all this is happening, if it's clear that the decision was wrong, it should, and would be changed. Players will have no reason to badger the ref in the big cases - but at the same time, it shouldn't be used for every foul. People expecting it to be are just being stupid, common sense needs to be used. The game is always slowed when it's a big decision that needs to be made, even in just the case of a late free kick for example. While everyone's arguing, or the defending team is setting up their wall, the video is reviewed and reversed if deemed necessary.

It works for red cards, so don't try to argue that. But, as for yellow cards, it's a bit more difficult. If a yellow card was deemed incorrect for whatever reason, then I feel that it can be reviewed while play is still going on, by an extra official, or officials. If it's again, obviously wrong, then it can be revoked when a decision is made and the referee, and commentary team can be notified, thus notifying us.

Seriously, "we won't have anything to talk about" is another bogus claim. We watch football to talk about the brilliant football we see, the chances that should have been scored, the funny moments, the extraordinary moments, the best goals, the sloppy defending, the upsets, the thrashings etc. If the only reason you watch football is to moan about refs when they get it wrong, then you seriously need to re-think your reasoning.

Video technology is the way forward. There's too much on the line in a game of football these days, too much money is at stake, it's stupid to avoid using something that can settle so much.

fredthered makes a good point about play not stopping, but my argument is, why would play have to be stopped?

An extra official, or officials can review this while play is going on if given word from the referee or linesman to make sure. If it was a goal, play can be stopped and the goal awarded, as long as they make the decision quickly, which as we've seen, can be done in a matter of seconds. If it wasn't a goal, there is no need to do anything, let play continue, as it was doing.

fredthered · 16th April 2010, 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Havak

fredthered makes a good point about play not stopping, but my argument is, why would play have to be stopped?

An extra official, or officials can review this while play is going on if given word from the referee or linesman to make sure. If it was a goal, play can be stopped and the goal awarded, as long as they make the decision quickly, which as we've seen, can be done in a matter of seconds. If it wasn't a goal, there is no need to do anything, let play continue, as it was doing.

I am not sure if you have read my latter post, but i explain why letting play continue until a decision is reached cannot work either.

I know I keep harping on about it, but the world cup final in 1966 is the classic case scenario which referees always refer to when discussing this issue.

Even after 44 years, we still cannot be sure the ball crossed the line. No amount of technology present would make that decision any easier to make. So there would be a poor assistant still sat there now scrutinising the evidence.

If they cant decide after 44 years, then whats to say they can decide in seconds every single time.

THen you can go to other situations where there could be problems.

In this day and age everything is scrutinised by TV cameras and its only when we see highlights that many things come to light. Supposing Rooney is in a game, and he gives a defender a sneaky kick. Its not spotted by anyone, then in the half time discussion Andy Gray happens to mention it. The assistant in charge of reviewing contentious decisions realises he hasnt seen it, so goes back and reviews the incident and realises that indeed Rooney has kicked him.

Does the referee then go back and award a free kick ?

The only reason everyone debates this is because everything in a game is seen by a TV camera. but in 99.9% of the cases those incidents only come to light much later on. Its all too easy to spot things when you have the luxury of a replay to fall back on. But referees and referees assistants dont ahve that luxury. They make a snap decision and that decision is the way it should be. Yes they will make mistakes, but referees have always made mistakes..

The number of contentious issues in football is actually minimal, and its normally only the most dramatic ones that get picked up on. 99.999% of games pass without incident. WHy change the whole structure of hte game, a game that has been fine for over 130 years, just for a couple of isolated incidents that realistically dont make that much difference in the long term, because as I've always said, you win some, you lose some..

askabob · 16th April 2010, 15:19

Good post fred.

Also, referees are qualified enough that they see the vast majority of incidents that occur in a game (in the area of active play). In fact, they can see so well that they often fool even the commentators who have close up video until they can see a replay. Only in rare circumstances will you see a referee not give a call because he hasn't seen it (i.e. Neville vs Anelka in the penalty box). If a foul occurs and a freekick isn't given, the reason this occurs is because the referee adjudges it to be a non-decision. Video replay would allow the referee to view it in slow motion but these days referees are talented enough that they understand what happened the first time around they saw it (in real life). Watching it in slow motion would not affect their decisions for the majority of cases.

Havak · 16th April 2010, 15:40

Again, valid points. But I still feel everything can be seen as subjective from other people's points of view. I think in the case of spotting a small kick such as the above scenario, if it was noticed during the game (during the game should probably include half time recaps), then it can be punished. I'm of the opinion that if something was only spotted a few minutes after, or during half time for example, such as a kick, it can be punished with a yellow card, or red card, when the decision is made. This may seem a bit odd to some, as if Rooney kicks Terry in the second minute of a match, but is only punished with a straight red at half time, or a yellow card for it after he was also booked in minute 34, Man Utd have gained an advantage by having him on the pitch for those extra 43 or 11 minutes. Alternatively, it could only be a talking to that was necessary. If the referee was notified at half time, he could speak to Rooney during the interval, or just before the second half kicks off.

I do have an argument to support this case even though some people may find it ludicrous. The fact is, it already happens. Rio Ferdinand elbows a Hull City player in the second half of the match. It's picked up during the match by cameras, the commentary team know of it, only the officials don't, when it could be brought to their attention in a matter of seconds. Rio Ferdinand is later punished, after the match, by the FA with a 3-4 match ban, as this was deemed as violent conduct and a red card offence in a football match. Man Utd has had an advantage of having Rio Ferdinand on the pitch for the remainder of that game. But later, the decision of what is effectively a red card for violent conduct has been awarded. It's exactly the same scenario. The player has been on the pitch after the incident but punished after. Why not be able to punish the player when there is a break in play, or, stop play and give the opposing team a free kick and award the card? At least it would give the opposing team some kind of advantage during the match, as this has happened to them, not the 3-4 teams their opponents play after. Everything that has happened up until that point probably doesn't need to be reversed, just because it wasn't picked up the instant it happened.

As for the ball crossing the line, if the official cannot come to a decision, then no decision should be made. I think that's a pretty straightforward one.

adexkola · 16th April 2010, 16:04

Sensors can be implemented in the goal posts to detect when then ball enters the net.

The technology is there to assist the referee, not override his decision. Final authority rests with the referee.

Snow · 16th April 2010, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

As a former referee, i can give you a precise reason why you cant use TV technology for incidents like a ball crossing the line.

Football is hte only sport that doesnt stop when a potential "point scoring" situation occurs.

In tennis, when you win a point, the player can then object and before the next point is played for they can analyse whether the point was awarded fairly.

In cricket, if a player is judged out, before play is started again, the umpire has the ability to check whether his decision is right or wrong.

In Rugby when a try is being debated, the play has already stopped, and before play recommences the referee can analyse whether it was indeed a try or not.

In football however the play doesnt stop. If a ball bounces down off the crossbar, the play isnt stopped so the referee doesnt have the chance to analyse anything. The only way you can perform a check owuld be the next time the ball wasnt in active play, which in some cases could be ten minutes later.

If the play was stopped when there was a dubious situation, then it could mean the defending team who have hte ball in their posession have to stop, the referee then realises it wasnt a goal, and they have lost their momentum, thus they've been penalised unfairly.

Let me give you a prime example of why it cannto be done

United v Spurs 2005. Carroll drops the ball and it goes over his own goal line. Everyone could see it was a goal, but the referee.. Play continues.. Supposing United then go upfield and score. The ball then is dead and at htis point the referee has a chance to see whats really happened.. He realises the ball has crossed the line. What then ?

Mistakes have been made by referees for years, and its part and parcel of the game. Some go for you. Some clearly dont..

I see no reason why theres a need to change it, and more importantly, there is no possible way to change it without totally changing hte rules of hte game.

As a former referee you know about letting play go on. You can blow your whistle a few seconds afterwards if you feel the advantage has been lost. That's how much time it takes to review.

Suppose United would have go upfield and score. Well, that's the unfair part isn't it and there is nothing unfair about stopping the game if there was in fact a goal. It takes no time at all for a referee or a technician to review it.
To add on that, if it were allowed there would probably be better angles of the line from cameras just for the 4th or 5th ref to check it out.

The main argument against this idea for me is the overall impact of this rule. The rules are the same no matter where you play and this rule couldn't be applied to most leagues in the world. Only a few. You wouldn't see this in a League 2 game.

askabob · 16th April 2010, 16:20

But for the majority of decisions, the referee has to view the replays HIMSELF because, in the end, it is his OPINION on whether or not it is a foul. It will take more than a few seconds of stoppage time for the referee to view the replays.

MrK · 16th April 2010, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

They still cant decided after 44 years if the ball crossed the line in hte world cup final..

If they cant decide after 44 years, then I think its a fair assumption to make that there could be cases where 20-30 seconds are needed.

Not a valid argument, it's a totally different situation.

They try to work out if the ball crossed the line in 1966 by using the (low quality) broadcast footage from the game, so the footage wasn't shot in the ideal place to see it clearly. If goal line video technology was to be used, it would obviously be set up to give the clearest possible view of the incident, rather than a good view of the proceeding game, like it was in 1966.

Regardless, video goal line technology would be a silly way to go about it. The technology is already there to work out if a ball has crossed a line and tell the whole stadium about it within milliseconds, we don't need humans fecking about trying to find "rewind" and "play" on a remote control to slow the whole process down!

Rado_N · 16th April 2010, 18:13

I've argued against the use of technology many times and I still don't want to see it, for many reasons but one which I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet is that when I'm at a match I enjoy the emotional celebration when the ball his the back of the net, and the idea of having to sit and wait to see 'goal' rather than 'no goal' appear on a screen is utter shite.

ciderman9000000 · 19th April 2010, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

Ok numbnuts,

SO whilst the referees assistant is reviewing the play, what happens if the other team then go up the pitch and score. What does the referee do then ?

Does he drag play all the way back ?

Just look at the world cup final in 1966. They still cant decide now if hte ball crossed the line, and every bit of TV technology has been used...

By your argument, the world cup could have been given to England and suddenly if someone comes up and realises it hadnt crossed they get all the players back, dig up Bobby Moore and restart the game....

Lets look at another situation..

If a contentious decision occurs then then what happens to the period of play in between it occuring and hte referee being told. Does that count as active play or not.. If it was indeed a goal, then anything that happens in between the incident and the referee being told it was a goal becomes non active. In effect it hasnt happened.

So think about this.

United v City.. United shoot. It could have crossed the line. The referee isnt sure so waves play on. The assistant in the mean time is looking at the camera to see if it did in fact cross the line. WHilst hes doing that, Rooney clatters into the keeper and breaks his leg. The referee then gives ROoney a red card and awards a free kick. Suddenly the assistant comes back and says that it was in fact a goal.

WHAT DOES THE REFEREE DO ABOUT ROONEY !!!

Hes just sent him off, and a keeper is lying there with a broken leg. But by your argument because it was indeed a goal, what occured afterwards actually didnt happen because play should have been stopped after the goal..

So its actually you that isnt thinking laterally and logically..

I've answered that exact same question two or three times already in this thread; either Rooney would have to be sent off, or he wouldn't, it all depends on how the legislation's implemented. What confuses me is how you manage to come to the conclusion that this is some kind of fatal impasse in the system. It's not in the slightest. The laws would just have to state that a) offences committee after a video decision would still be punishable, or, b) they would not. Problem solved one way or another.

As for the '66 goal, what the fuck? They didn't have the technology then, you moron.

green demon · 19th April 2010, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

The article is written from a point of wherein the technology relaces the refree (or) questions each & every of his decisions. But it doesn't work that way.

-> The refree has got the option to call in for a video replay if he is not sure of his decision or if opposing teams have a major claim. It's his choice.
-> Both captains have the option to question the refree twice (called strikes) during the course of the match. If they feel that a goal/offside or not decision is wrong and has a major impact on the major outcome, they can request refree to refer to video replays. If their claim is correct, the decision is changed and they retain their 'strikes'.

Same old arguement, which happens before tech is introduced. It happened in cricket too, but now the game goes on without any "decline". Sacrificing accuracy for gameplay is not wise. Football is a game, not gambling. Win or lose should be based on the players, not the refree's performance.

This is nonsense. Agreed refree's are human and mistakes will happen. But making the consequences stricter would only force more pressure on the ref's which does not always guarantee success. Instead of threatening them, you can provide them with the tech tools to make their job better, simpler, easier and more accurate.

Stavros is Mr 100%, that is 100% correct. I agree with all your points here and I'm surprised that FIFA haven't considered the two calls rule.

Striker10 · 19th April 2010, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

They still cant decided after 44 years if the ball crossed the line in hte world cup final..

If they cant decide after 44 years, then I think its a fair assumption to make that there could be cases where 20-30 seconds are needed.

fred I think cameras/picture quality and the number of cameras at games has evolved/increased since then

..

SharkyMcShark · 19th April 2010, 10:39

While I wouldn't like to see something like each coach being given a limited amount of chances to make a challenge, I don't think it would be that hard to implement goal line technology whereby we know whether the ball has crossed the line or not. Not do I think it would interrupt the flow of the game.

Striker10 · 19th April 2010, 10:43

You can't debate technology without breaking things down. Not everything is worth 'review'. Every decision that would need it totals less then the amount of time the balls out of play. An awful lot less. The time lost (minimal) to technology could be made up by tidying the game of cheats who fake injury for 1/2 minutes or time wasting in games.......

Look at the henry incident. 10 seconds. Not all are clear cut but in that game, a perfect example of why something should be introduced.....a perfect example but there are too many influences so it never gets anywhere and they hide behind the 'time lost' bullshit.

IF they cared about time so much, all clubs MUST have ball boys who get the ball to their opposition as soon as they can when the ball goes out for a throw in or a goal kick. They don't. Clubs are allowed to waste time and they argue it would effect the natural flow? Idiots. The balls out of play for nearly one third of every game.....

Tribec · 19th April 2010, 11:10

We all agree that football is a fast flowing game, and that the pace of the players has increased two fold over the past few years with improved training methods, better diets etc. The referee's have attempted to keep up and on the whole do a reasonable job. I use the term reasonable, as I don't think Fifa have helped the ref's with the numerous rule changes which have contributed to the speed of the game increasing.

However, whilst reading this thread, and whilst being able to recognise the advantages of modern technology being used to help the ref's, I also want to keep one foot in the past and would like us all to stop moaning about poor calls from the officials as they have taken place through out the history of football. Perhaps then football could and I say could take a look at other sports for help here. Rugby has added to the amount of officials on the pitches over the years, having officials standing in the try area, ice hockey which is substancially quicker than football has introduced a second referee to the game. It's this idea which I think Fifa should try first whilst possibly researching the technology that could assist officials.

Two referee's on the pitch one for each half I think would improve the situation, as the ref's would find it easier to keep up with play, so any arguements over fitness (we can all recall Fergie's jibe earlier this season) should be eradicated, having the second ref watching from the half way, would possibly pick up any off the ball incidents etc and should both refs want to confer over a decision then they can do so. I do also like the idea of the ref explaining the decision to the crowd and players over the pa systems. At least that way we know why the ref didn't think it was a goal or why they didn't send a player off etc. Whilst it isn't perfect, it would be a start to getting better than it currently is.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Why Video Technology Is Not The Answer

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

15th April 2010, 02:19	#42 (permalink)
MarkC Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 689	If it's going to happen why not just let teams stop it if they appeal it and if it isn't then give the opposing team a free kick say 10 or 20 yards further down the pitch than when the game was stopped. I know it isn't an ideal situation and can see your point but as long as it isn't abused then i'm sure it would be in everyones interest at some point.

15th April 2010, 03:04	#43 (permalink)
gbgary First Team Sub Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: dallas Posts: 8,988	i'm for it...in a limited scope. give each team a set number of appeals, say two per half...or even just one per half. the appeal can only be made *after* the run of play is over (and that doesn't mean a dead ball. it could be during the next lull in play). it can't be called during a counter attack for example. confirmation of a goal scored or denied (or is that the same thing...lol), offside, hand balls, and whether a called foul is in or outside the box, being the only reviewable incidents. leave actual foul calling to the ref. what say you?

15th April 2010, 03:26	#44 (permalink)
beardsleybob First Team Sub Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: On the prowl for a new pimp. Any interested applicants PM me Posts: 7,386	Can't let technology into football. It'll just turn on us

15th April 2010, 06:45	#45 (permalink)
RedThaiDevils#7 First Team Sub Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Married with Manchester United, In love with Giggs, Is passionate about Scholes, and is rooting for Kagawa' Posts: 5,818	I like the idea of challenges just like tennis. I mean sometimes decisions are just too unfair, remember Scholes Goal Vs Porto ? Drogba Offside ? Henry's goal costed a nation to have a chance to go to the world cup. All these could have been helped if you allowed challenges, I'd say give 2 challenges per each team per match. As of course it is a rareity so we do not have to challenge everything. Just the real lame decisions.

15th April 2010, 09:02	#46 (permalink)
ciderman9000000 Off his rocker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Manchester City Posts: 26,281	askabob, why should anyone counter your arguments? They're not new or original arguments, just repetition of the old ones. Also, your arguments aren't all that coherent anyway. For example, your argument concerning the subjectivity of decisions is completely irrelevant; video technology would give the officials the opportunity to actually see the things that they are all too often missing, it's not supposed to make their decisions for them, but simply allow them to better make decisions for themselves. What difference does it make whether that decision is something that could be interperated objective or subjectively? Either way, with video technology the decision will have a far greater chance of being made correctly, and that's the whole point. Then, your argument over time delays. You've made it as if all this has never been thought of before; but you're wrong, it has. There are loads of different methods of implementation that would reduce delays and allow the game to continue to flow naturally; a few have been repeated in this thread, and there are many more; why are you trying to make out as if there are none and it would be all just be impossible? Again, your apparent ignorance on the subject causes your argument to become irrelevant. The kids in the park is the poorest of all your arguments. How would video technology affect them in any way whatsoever? It doesn't stop anyone playing tennis or rugby or snooker at amateur level, does it? Why the hell then would it affect anyone playing football? You're clutching at straws on that one, probably because your previous arguments were so ill-conceived and badly put, but clutching at straws nevertheless. Your argument concerning the cost of goal-line tech is uneducated and troglodytic (what expertise have you that qualify you to be making decisions on the effective cost of the technology?). Your referees points/league/promotions suggestion is counter-productive and would only serve to increase egotism rather than objectivity. All in all, your arguments are weak and wholly lacking in substance. I'm not all for video tech myself; i can see there would be complications; but i believe that those complications could be ironed-out eventually through trials and proper testing, and the game would probably be better for it. To dismiss it outright though, based on what you've put forward in your OP, would be just madness; your amateurish speculations and declarations add absolutely nothing whatsoever to the debate, and are really not worth the time it takes to read them. Countered enough for you?

15th April 2010, 09:18	#48 (permalink)
Dyslexic Untied First Team Sub Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,892	I agree with the thread starter. Also for those saying that goals can be checked for offside. Obviously they can, but what happens when the referee blows for offside when the player is onside, or atleast his team thinks he is onside. Do you blow the whistle and check the TV. If he is onside, then what do you do? How many times will a team get a chance to claim onside? Or do you not blow your whistle when you think it might be onside and check the TV later, after the attack is finished, or perhaps during? That would leave a refereeing delay of about 10 -15 seconds for every attack including a possible offside situation. Imagine that vs. Milan with Inzaghi.

15th April 2010, 20:43	#61 (permalink)
Ace Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: ------------------------------ Posts: 3,840	This whole debate about how "expensive" this technology is... Absolute idiocy. They already have hundreds of cameras covering every angle of the field at all times. When there has ever been a goal line debate, the replay is shown from the goal line camera and it is completely cut and dry whether it is a goal or not. So don't tell me its going to be expensive.

16th April 2010, 05:12	#62 (permalink)
Snow First Team Regular Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: I like turtles Posts: 16,864	I'd like the video tech to be used on two occasions. Controversial goals, ball in or out, hand of god. The extreme cases. And things that deserve a straight red but the ref misses it. There too many screw ups with the FA regarding those decisions and it'd be easier to deal with it on pitch. The challenge idea is a great one as well. That way the managers can only blame themselves if they screw things up. Takes pressure off the refs as well.

16th April 2010, 14:51	#66 (permalink)
Havak Reserve Team Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Salford, Manchester Posts: 3,074	"Slowing the game down" is the biggest bullshit anyone can come up with. When there's a red card, or penalty given, or of course, a goal scored, the game is almost always stopped for upwards of a minute anyway. With players surrounding the ref to argue their case when there's no chance of a decision being changed, or players celebrating when a goal is scored. Video technology only needs to be viewed by another official while all this is happening, if it's clear that the decision was wrong, it should, and would be changed. Players will have no reason to badger the ref in the big cases - but at the same time, it shouldn't be used for every foul. People expecting it to be are just being stupid, common sense needs to be used. The game is always slowed when it's a big decision that needs to be made, even in just the case of a late free kick for example. While everyone's arguing, or the defending team is setting up their wall, the video is reviewed and reversed if deemed necessary. It works for red cards, so don't try to argue that. But, as for yellow cards, it's a bit more difficult. If a yellow card was deemed incorrect for whatever reason, then I feel that it can be reviewed while play is still going on, by an extra official, or officials. If it's again, obviously wrong, then it can be revoked when a decision is made and the referee, and commentary team can be notified, thus notifying us. Seriously, "we won't have anything to talk about" is another bogus claim. We watch football to talk about the brilliant football we see, the chances that should have been scored, the funny moments, the extraordinary moments, the best goals, the sloppy defending, the upsets, the thrashings etc. If the only reason you watch football is to moan about refs when they get it wrong, then you seriously need to re-think your reasoning. Video technology is the way forward. There's too much on the line in a game of football these days, too much money is at stake, it's stupid to avoid using something that can settle so much. fredthered makes a good point about play not stopping, but my argument is, why would play have to be stopped? An extra official, or officials can review this while play is going on if given word from the referee or linesman to make sure. If it was a goal, play can be stopped and the goal awarded, as long as they make the decision quickly, which as we've seen, can be done in a matter of seconds. If it wasn't a goal, there is no need to do anything, let play continue, as it was doing.

16th April 2010, 15:19	#68 (permalink)
askabob Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 4,400	Good post fred. Also, referees are qualified enough that they see the vast majority of incidents that occur in a game (in the area of active play). In fact, they can see so well that they often fool even the commentators who have close up video until they can see a replay. Only in rare circumstances will you see a referee not give a call because he hasn't seen it (i.e. Neville vs Anelka in the penalty box). If a foul occurs and a freekick isn't given, the reason this occurs is because the referee adjudges it to be a non-decision. Video replay would allow the referee to view it in slow motion but these days referees are talented enough that they understand what happened the first time around they saw it (in real life). Watching it in slow motion would not affect their decisions for the majority of cases.

16th April 2010, 15:40	#69 (permalink)
Havak Reserve Team Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Salford, Manchester Posts: 3,074	Again, valid points. But I still feel everything can be seen as subjective from other people's points of view. I think in the case of spotting a small kick such as the above scenario, if it was noticed during the game (during the game should probably include half time recaps), then it can be punished. I'm of the opinion that if something was only spotted a few minutes after, or during half time for example, such as a kick, it can be punished with a yellow card, or red card, when the decision is made. This may seem a bit odd to some, as if Rooney kicks Terry in the second minute of a match, but is only punished with a straight red at half time, or a yellow card for it after he was also booked in minute 34, Man Utd have gained an advantage by having him on the pitch for those extra 43 or 11 minutes. Alternatively, it could only be a talking to that was necessary. If the referee was notified at half time, he could speak to Rooney during the interval, or just before the second half kicks off. I do have an argument to support this case even though some people may find it ludicrous. The fact is, it already happens. Rio Ferdinand elbows a Hull City player in the second half of the match. It's picked up during the match by cameras, the commentary team know of it, only the officials don't, when it could be brought to their attention in a matter of seconds. Rio Ferdinand is later punished, after the match, by the FA with a 3-4 match ban, as this was deemed as violent conduct and a red card offence in a football match. Man Utd has had an advantage of having Rio Ferdinand on the pitch for the remainder of that game. But later, the decision of what is effectively a red card for violent conduct has been awarded. It's exactly the same scenario. The player has been on the pitch after the incident but punished after. Why not be able to punish the player when there is a break in play, or, stop play and give the opposing team a free kick and award the card? At least it would give the opposing team some kind of advantage during the match, as this has happened to them, not the 3-4 teams their opponents play after. Everything that has happened up until that point probably doesn't need to be reversed, just because it wasn't picked up the instant it happened. As for the ball crossing the line, if the official cannot come to a decision, then no decision should be made. I think that's a pretty straightforward one.

16th April 2010, 16:04	#70 (permalink)
adexkola American Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Brooklyn, Connecticut. "Football Was Alright As Long as We Were Winning Everything And Everybody Knew Their Place" Posts: 13,111	Sensors can be implemented in the goal posts to detect when then ball enters the net. The technology is there to assist the referee, not override his decision. Final authority rests with the referee.

16th April 2010, 16:20	#72 (permalink)
askabob Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 4,400	But for the majority of decisions, the referee has to view the replays HIMSELF because, in the end, it is his OPINION on whether or not it is a foul. It will take more than a few seconds of stoppage time for the referee to view the replays.

16th April 2010, 18:13	#74 (permalink)
Rado_N Came from nowhere, yet still a better modmin than Weaste ever was Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: mishy gishy gushy gushy mishy meshy mushy, motherfucker Posts: 45,383	I've argued against the use of technology many times and I still don't want to see it, for many reasons but one which I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet is that when I'm at a match I enjoy the emotional celebration when the ball his the back of the net, and the idea of having to sit and wait to see 'goal' rather than 'no goal' appear on a screen is utter shite.

19th April 2010, 10:39	#78 (permalink)
SharkyMcShark Horrified Join Date: May 2007 Location: Using location as a tagline: because I'm just not cool enough to have my own. Posts: 19,952	While I wouldn't like to see something like each coach being given a limited amount of chances to make a challenge, I don't think it would be that hard to implement goal line technology whereby we know whether the ball has crossed the line or not. Not do I think it would interrupt the flow of the game.

19th April 2010, 10:43	#79 (permalink)
Striker10 "Ronaldo and trophies > Manchester United football club" Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,088	You can't debate technology without breaking things down. Not everything is worth 'review'. Every decision that would need it totals less then the amount of time the balls out of play. An awful lot less. The time lost (minimal) to technology could be made up by tidying the game of cheats who fake injury for 1/2 minutes or time wasting in games....... Look at the henry incident. 10 seconds. Not all are clear cut but in that game, a perfect example of why something should be introduced.....a perfect example but there are too many influences so it never gets anywhere and they hide behind the 'time lost' bullshit. IF they cared about time so much, all clubs MUST have ball boys who get the ball to their opposition as soon as they can when the ball goes out for a throw in or a goal kick. They don't. Clubs are allowed to waste time and they argue it would effect the natural flow? Idiots. The balls out of play for nearly one third of every game.....

19th April 2010, 11:10	#80 (permalink)
Tribec Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Out and Proud of it.... I'm a Red and I'm from Salford. Posts: 2,976	We all agree that football is a fast flowing game, and that the pace of the players has increased two fold over the past few years with improved training methods, better diets etc. The referee's have attempted to keep up and on the whole do a reasonable job. I use the term reasonable, as I don't think Fifa have helped the ref's with the numerous rule changes which have contributed to the speed of the game increasing. However, whilst reading this thread, and whilst being able to recognise the advantages of modern technology being used to help the ref's, I also want to keep one foot in the past and would like us all to stop moaning about poor calls from the officials as they have taken place through out the history of football. Perhaps then football could and I say could take a look at other sports for help here. Rugby has added to the amount of officials on the pitches over the years, having officials standing in the try area, ice hockey which is substancially quicker than football has introduced a second referee to the game. It's this idea which I think Fifa should try first whilst possibly researching the technology that could assist officials. Two referee's on the pitch one for each half I think would improve the situation, as the ref's would find it easier to keep up with play, so any arguements over fitness (we can all recall Fergie's jibe earlier this season) should be eradicated, having the second ref watching from the half way, would possibly pick up any off the ball incidents etc and should both refs want to confer over a decision then they can do so. I do also like the idea of the ref explaining the decision to the crowd and players over the pa systems. At least that way we know why the ref didn't think it was a goal or why they didn't send a player off etc. Whilst it isn't perfect, it would be a start to getting better than it currently is.