Why Video Technology Is Not The Answer

Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by askabob, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. Apr 14, 2010
    #1

    askabob Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,492
    Location:
    Medical student
    Sports have kept in touch with technology as the information age has changed the face of modern games. Cricket, basketball, rugby, tennis, American football, and a plethora of other sports employ video technology in order to help referees make decisions and review calls. However, football, arguably the world's most popular sport, has yet to integrate video technology into its rules. Although I disagree with the majority of FIFA President Sepp Blatter's opinions, I am in concord with him distancing football from the use of video technology.

    Several controversial incidents have caused a public outcry for video technology to be implemented in football, most notably Ireland's loss to France in World Cup Qualifying due to a Thierry Henry handball. Smaller errors that occur almost week in week out often go unnoticed to the public eye, but these mistakes by referees often have large implications on the season's outcome. The media has decided that video technology is the answer to all their problems, and that if implemented, will eradicate almost all problems from refereeing.

    [​IMG]

    Thierry Henry's infamous handball against Ireland

    However, there lie several complications that will crop up if video technology is ever introduced in football. The subjective nature of refereeing and time-delayed alerts mean that it will be extremely difficult for video technology to have a profound impact on football.

    The outcome of a football match is at the sole discretion of the referee: he has the authority to abandon a match and dictate gameplay. While the majority of referees do not abuse their powers, several "styles of refereeing" are obvious during a football match. Some referees tend to stop play whenever they see a foul whereas others value gameplay and prefer to allow the game to flow. This distinction between officiating styles is vital because it highlights the subjective nature of refereeing. A particular referee could decide an incident in the 18-yard box to be a penalty while another might consider it a case of diving.

    On the other hand, video technology places importance on objectivity: was the player offside? did the ball cross the line? This black and white nature of video technology would rarely influence decision-making in a football match. Referees could see slow-motion replays of incidents but still arrive at different conclusions based on their interpretation of the rules. For example, video replay might show that a player's hand did indeed make contact with the ball, but it would be up to the discretion of the referee to adjudge whether it was ball-to-hand or hand-to-ball.

    Thus, there are only a few objective scenarios where video technology actually be of assistance to the referee, such as whether or not a player was offside or if the ball completely crossed the goalline. However, not even all of these objective decisions could be resolved by video technology.

    Any implementation of video technology would require at least a few second delay in processing the information of an event and passing it on to the referee. This means that there will exist incidents where video technology detracts, rather than assists, the gameplay of the match. Consider this scenario: Drogba was actually onside before he scored against us but the linesman flagged him as offside. The referee would stop play and award United an indirect freekick, but Chelsea would appeal the decision and video technology would show that Drogba was indeed onside. How would the referee give the advantage back to Chelsea? Giving them a freekick would be unfair as it would not necessarily give them a clear goalscoring opportunity that might have occurred had Drogba not been flagged offside. In the real world, video technology would have ruled Drogba's goal offside, but is implementing such an expensive technology worth solving only a handful of officiating problems?

    [​IMG]

    Video technology is only useful for black and white decisions

    In any case, referees are human and mistakes will inevitably occur under any circumstance. FIFA should impose stricter consequences on refereeing mistakes and propose a referee promotion/points system that will improve the quality of officiating instead of implementing an artificial technology that will inevitably be futile.

    The beauty of football lies in the fact that it is a "natural" game. The game that is played by millions in their local park is the exact same game that earns professionals millions of dollars. Introducing video technology truly makes "natural" football an endangered species as nearly ever aspect of the game would become a business. In fact, controversy adds a bit of spice to the football.. without it, the passion of the game disappears.. and we are left with a sport that values business over beauty.

    Joga Bonito. Árbitro bonito.
  2. Apr 14, 2010
    #2

    phelans shorts Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    20,477
    Location:
    Gaz. Is a Mewling Quim.
    Agree completely, a referee league would probably be the best way to go, like the normal league but worst performers are dropped and better performances get you into champs league, internationals etc...
  3. Apr 14, 2010
    #3

    I'm always right Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    15,913
    Location:
    Mêlée Island
    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?

    I kinda like Arsene Wengers "joker" idea, each manager has one joker card to play per game, kinda like a challenge in tennis.
  4. Apr 14, 2010
    #4

    askabob Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,492
    Location:
    Medical student
    How many times do you actually see a goal being debated based on the grounds that it did or did not cross the line? When you consider how expensive implementing an extensive goalline technology would be, it is not worth it at all.
  5. Apr 14, 2010
    #5

    SharkyMcShark Horrified

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    20,720
    Location:
    Using location as a tagline: because I'm just not
    Scousers v Chavs in the 2005 Champions League semi final was worth millions.
  6. Apr 14, 2010
    #6

    shaydun Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,227
    Location:
    Ireland
    What's wrong with that?
    At least everyone would know that the referee has definitely seen the incident.
    The linesman flags, the referee plays advantage. Chelsea have a chance to score, they either convert or miss, after which the ref refers to the replay. If the player was onside, the goal/corner is allowed. If the player was offside, then the defending team gets a free kick as normal.

    It's simply a matter of playing the few extra seconds after the linesman puts up the flag.
    Disagree. That is a romanticised view of the game. The lads playing in the park will still be able to play in the park, the professional game and amateur game are already different on so many levels - facilities, equipment, stadia, etc. Video technology will be just another one to add to the list - it's not going to be the only one.


    Your argument is based on the objectivity of the referee - but most people who favour video technology just want to give the referee the opportunity to see everything that happens. It's not necessarily an attempt to wipe out subjectivity. A 50-50 call will always be a 50-50 call, and people realise that. But at least give the ref the chance to see the incident. A 50-50 call that the referee cannot see will not lead to subjective decisions (which there is nothing wrong with), but bad decisions.
  7. Apr 14, 2010
    #7

    Mockney Not the only poster to be named Poster of the Year

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    32,679
    Location:
    Bangerang
    Why?
  8. Apr 14, 2010
    #8

    shaydun Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,227
    Location:
    Ireland
    Yeah a challenge would be a sort of compromise, guaranteeing that will be only be a certain number of video stoppages in each game.
  9. Apr 14, 2010
    #9

    elmo Can never have too many Eevees

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,786
    Location:
    AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
    How about just reviewing every goal and checking if the player is offside instead of having the linesmen flag?

    It'll ensure that everyone plays until the ball is out of play, so defenders won't have any excuse of hearing "phantom" whistles or arguing over whether the striker was offside.

    The technology is already available anyway, it's rubbish sometimes when everybody in the world can see that the 3 men in black have made the wrong decision but the most important people didn't realise they made one.
  10. Apr 14, 2010
    #10

    VoetbalWizard Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    12,589
    Location:
    at the altar of ryan giggs
    for me video replay must be used on goal line crossing and offsides.
  11. Apr 14, 2010
    #11

    Mockney Not the only poster to be named Poster of the Year

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    32,679
    Location:
    Bangerang
    offsides won't work. They'd need to let every possible offside decision play out and then decide after the play's stopped or a goal scored, or stop it randomly when they've had a chance to see a replay, but the game would always have to be played on. It would be inconsistent and unfair otherwise.

    Goal line tech is a must.
  12. Apr 14, 2010
    #12

    Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber Thus says Kemo

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,896
    Location:
    Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
    Why the hell would the center referee be allowed to see the video footage during a match in the first place? That should be the 4th official's job, In his role as advisory to the center ref.

    Furthermore I find it kinda insulting for anyone to think there are only a handful of incidents that go wrong in football because of a lack of video evidence. There are in fact loads due to refs getting scant to simply rubbish help from their lines men.
  13. Apr 14, 2010
    #13

    Carl has permanently erect nipples

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    37,095
    Goal line technology should be implemented. I'm astonished it isnt already in place to be honest.

    As for the rest.... there's some good arguments for and some good arguments against. What people should remember though is that it won't stop the controversy. Just because someone see's a replay doesnt mean they'll make the right decision. Incidents are always debated to death on here with 1 person swearing blind 1 thing should have been given and the other swearing nlind it shouldnt. It's all down to interpretation.
  14. Apr 14, 2010
    #14

    MrK Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,759
    Location:
    In an aeroplane over the sea

    I don't see why it has to be terribly expensive myself. The initial R&D costs might need a wad of cash, although probably not a massive figure when you consider the amounts of money in football these days. The actual cost of producing the equipment to do the job doesn't need to be very big at all, for many cases. For decisions involving the location of the ball/players i don't see why it would be so hard to implement an accurate and relatively cheap system. On our phones and in our cars, pretty cheap little GPS chips can tell us our location on the planet earth with an error of just a couple of metres, the technology required to tell the location of a ball and 22 men in a field to a good enough accuracy probably doesn't be all that cutting edge.

    How it's implemented in the game? Give the referee live feedback on the game, and let it be a tool he uses to make correct decisions. They already have earpieces to talk to their assistants, we don't exactly have that in sunday league, do we? Why not just a few more little chips to have in their beltpacks to indicate to them when the ball has crossed the goal line, or who's in an offside position when a ball is played towards the opposition defence?

    I sometimes suspect it's because bad decisions play a role in the popularity of the sport.
  15. Apr 14, 2010
    #15

    shaydun Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,227
    Location:
    Ireland
    Agreed.
  16. Apr 14, 2010
    #16

    Arruda Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    8,024
    Location:
    Porto
    I honestly don't worry that much with the goal line... In our league alone we have about 3-4 of that doubts in an entire season, whether the ball crossed the line or not...

    If you compare that with bad calls on penalties, or the insane amount of legal attacking plays that are cut-off because the linesmen are too flag-happy, it really is a non-issue to me, statistically speaking.
  17. Apr 14, 2010
    #17

    MarkC Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    It has to be used in my opinion. How can you expect a referee to go out there and call every big decision right when everyone apart from him can see replay after replay? Then the players and managers go away after the game and see the replays and slate the refs. How is that helping the cause of referees and earning them respect it just adds to there problems.

    The only fair way to do it is to have replays. Yes there would be issues with this but it would be fairer and that's the main point. I would love to see someone make a list of some of the howlers refs have made this season. When these decisions are costing teams leagues and places in World Cup these are career changing decisions for players.

    How anyone can put up a good argument for not having technology I don't understand. There has to be a system that wouldn't disrupt the game too much look at other sports that have managed it. There is so much riding on some football games these days so much goes into preparing for games and it is so frustrating to see a referee end up deciding games with wrong decisions.

    It isn't about the 50-50's these will always be debatable it's the clear wrong decision the Gerrard dives, the Terry assaults, Henry handballs, Rio throwing fists, Penaltys that never were, Blatant offsides not given, Blatant penaltys not given, Goals where the ball had travelled 2foot across the line and noone notices. This isn't part of the romance of football this is what is ruining the game for everyone. Football would not miss this there will always be controversy.

    Why so many extremely poor decisions this year, It's the focus people like Sky Sports news are putting on individual incidents, Why do you think these decisions are happening there is to much pressure on referees. They are so scared of getting it wrong knowing the whole world will see that it's affecting there ability if you ask me. And replays would solve this.

    How many decision would be changed for the better if there was just someone in the refeeres team sitting in the stands watching Sky or whatever. All it would take is a quick call to the ref through the earpiece to say it was over the line, it was handball whatever.

    But football has moved on from the days where refs could get away with dodgy calls before they can't now. Give referees the ability to see things twice and the game would be a million times better for it.
  18. Apr 14, 2010
    #18

    ntripunovski Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Location:
    Macedonia
    Stupid article....

    Bring video technology into the game with 1 or 2 challanges (like tenis) per game from one team each... problem solved...... Drogba offside goal.... Penalty against Park, Penalty against Anelka... Macheda's handball... They would have all been right decesion no mather what style of refereeng on ref is having ...
  19. Apr 14, 2010
    #19

    204Red Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,969
    Location:
    Canada
    As it stands Football (and I mean soccer, not the NFL... which I will refer to later) is the ONLY major professional sport which does not use some sort of replay or review system as a part of the game. That should say something.

    Now no one is saying that every single call in a game should be up for debate, and that there are instances where the game will have to stop for a set period of time while something is reviewed. But I don't buy into the argument that this will ruin the game... with in 30seconds of Henry handling the ball, the whole world saw that this was a blatently botched call... easy fix.

    Clearly an NFL style challenge is the way to go.

    Don't get me wrong, this will not eliminate bad calls, they are very much a part of the game. But it will help improve the game by at least giving some recourse to calls that have gone so horribly wrong recently... the Henry hand ball being the obvious one. Two flags per game (with an additional one for extra time) and a replay official sanctioned by the league. There must be clear video evidence in order to overturn the ruling on the pitch.

    Ask the referee's, I'm sure they'd appreciate the back up instead of being hung out to dry.

    And I don't buy the "lower leagues can't do this so if they can't do it no one should be able to to it" argument. This should be standard in ALL top European leagues as well as WC qualifying and the CL starting next season.

    The trick is to lay down the guidelines as to what can be reviewed and what can not. In recent United games for example I would say that United have the right to challenge Drogba's goal as clear video evidence showed that he was offside... but they should not be able to challenge Raphael's sending off... it was a subjective call and referees still need some leeway in making their own decisions.

    And whatever system is brought in should also include the ability to punish and exonerate after the fact, and some much needed consistency brought to such decisions... I agreed with Rio getting suspended for what he did to Fagan, but Gerrard and Maccherano should have also been suspended for their recent off the ball actions. And why video evidence was not used to overturn Darren Fletcher's suspension in last years CL was a total joke... poor calls such as these ruin the integrity of the game, especially when there are simple fixes which will help correct the problem.
  20. Apr 14, 2010
    #20

    askabob Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,492
    Location:
    Medical student
    Why don't you actually read my article and try to counter my arguments instead of blindly stating what has been repeated thousands of times :rolleyes:

    The penalties would not have been black and white decisions because again, they are subjective calls.. as was the handball (was it ball-to-hand or hand-to-ball)? Only Drogba's goal could have been ruled offside with video replay but how often do you see officials miss such blatant calls? It's a rarity.
  21. Apr 14, 2010
    #21

    askabob Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,492
    Location:
    Medical student
    I'd say goal line technology would be used maybe 1 out of a couple hundred goals, if that. It's not as if it would make a significant difference to the game, why should FIFA spend that much money on it?
  22. Apr 14, 2010
    #22

    Alex Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    41,963
    Location:
    ____
    I think it would put a black eye on the sport stoppages every minute or two for offsides, fouls, goals, etc. Pretty soon there would be halves with 20 minutes of stoppage time on the regular.
  23. Apr 14, 2010
    #23

    MarkC Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Does it really take that much money to put a camera in line with the goals?

    Say World Cup Semi's or Final this year ball crosses the line and not given. Look how much money goes into the World Cup look how much money there is resting on things like relegation or European qualification. The money that it would cost isn't a good argument I don't think I bet you could set up a camera at every Premier League ground and a monitor for less than 5-10k if you really wanted.
  24. Apr 14, 2010
    #24

    Sir A1ex Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    24,467
    Location:
    Where the goals come from.
    Wrong forum
  25. Apr 14, 2010
    #25

    elmo Can never have too many Eevees

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,786
    Location:
    AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
    It may be a rarity, but when a decision like this could cost up to millions worldwide in terms of prize-money and gambling revenue, I do think it's worth implementing it.
  26. Apr 14, 2010
    #26

    ntripunovski Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Location:
    Macedonia
    I did not offend you personally I just think on that matter you dont think reasonable.... Again... Every ref would have given United penalty for Park incident and Chelsea penalty for Anelka incident... That's what I wrote... I agree that some penalties are subjective calls but some are not... Those penalties were not.... If you watch closely you would also see that Macheda played with hand... Just like Henry did and just like Pique did in last season CL semi final against Chelsea.... And not to mention offside.... bayern got through because of that goal scored from offside... Tell that to FIorentina who played great against them that offside call is doesnt happen very often... Drogba was offside from quite a bit against us... All I'm saying is that with video technology there would be mistakes again but they will not be so many
  27. Apr 14, 2010
    #27

    oleonenumber20 Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,875
    I think Technology can work, like the way it has worked in rugby. The referee still has control over the match, and can control it at his pace and make all the decisions. Then when he is unsure over tight decisions he just asks the 4th official if there is any reason why he can't give the goal.
  28. Apr 14, 2010
    #28

    RonaldoVII Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,711
    Location:
    E236:24:101 Betfair: UTFAKVVTJ PSN:FrozenInHell
    feck that. We'd be top of the league with it.
  29. Apr 14, 2010
    #29

    MrK Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,759
    Location:
    In an aeroplane over the sea
    It does seem that especially towards the very top of the league the margins have become so tight that a bad officiating judgement is probably one of the more likely things to break a deadlock, and it doesn't make sense to me to want to keep it that way.

    Even less than 30 years ago a few of our top players would even be regularly filling up with beer the night before a game, but now we have curfews, total alcohol bans, strict dietary regulations, intensive trainings to hone aspects of a players physique, and all the top teams use them to a high level, leaving far fewer differences in the qualities of players across the teams. Screw the money, we want these contests to be decided by a little piece of magic, not by someone just not being able to see something properly.
  30. Apr 14, 2010
    #30

    Alwyn Got rid of his pee

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Location:
    -)
    We'd have feck all to talk about after a game if video tech was introduced.
  31. Apr 14, 2010
    #31

    MrK Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,759
    Location:
    In an aeroplane over the sea
    :)
  32. Apr 14, 2010
    #32

    RonaldoVII Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,711
    Location:
    E236:24:101 Betfair: UTFAKVVTJ PSN:FrozenInHell
    Looking at the majority of threads on here that wouldn't be a bad thing.
  33. Apr 14, 2010
    #33

    VoetbalWizard Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    12,589
    Location:
    at the altar of ryan giggs
    how do you figure? tactics, formations, lineups, bulgarians being shite, transfers, etc are all still topics that would be espoused upon even with video tech being in the game.
  34. Apr 14, 2010
    #34

    adexkola American Arse

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    17,201
    Location:
    Tristate. In the street like a hooker's feet
    Yeah cause all we talk about is about the ref's feck ups
  35. Apr 14, 2010
    #35

    DocRockter Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,546
    Location:
    Finland
    I disagree almost completely to that article..

    Why not give the 4th official a screen from which he can overturn the decisions that the referee and the linesmen got wrong on the pitch. This would not include situations like "was the ball played to the hand or did it interfered the play" but it could be used to change incorrect offside-decisions and to see if the ball has completely crossed the goal-line.. This way we could be sure that "drogba" never happens to anyone again...
  36. Apr 14, 2010
    #36

    Alwyn Got rid of his pee

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Location:
    -)
    Heh.

    You obviously didn't get the sarcastic nature of my post. Also, I can't think of any Bulgarians being shite.
  37. Apr 14, 2010
    #37

    askabob Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,492
    Location:
    Medical student
    It would be nice if it were that easy.. you haven't countered any of the arguments that I have put forth.
  38. Apr 14, 2010
    #38

    Striker10 "Ronaldo and trophies > Manchester United football

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    14,698
    Technology isn't the answer because the media don't want it. Controversy and talking points are too important. Much more then justice and fairplay. The media have the game by the balls, even dictating kick off times and that's why it's not the answer. It's not allowed to be

    The beautiful game, my arse. It's wwe at times.
  39. Apr 15, 2010
    #39

    Stavros Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,620
    Location:
    I dont exist. I'm just a figment of your imaginati
    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.
  40. Apr 15, 2010
    #40

    jveezy Fo' shizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Messages:
    14,741
    Location:
    Rancho Cordova, California, USA
    But isn't it less unfair than simply giving the other team the ball? It doesn't completely rectify the situation but it gives the aggrieved team at least some chance to pick up the pieces.

    Also as far as expenses go, it doesn't have to be implemented in all leagues from top to bottom. But I certainly think it's something the top leagues with the most lucrative businesses can certainly afford to preserve the integrity of their product.

Share This Page