Match Technology

[Magnet]

Progress with the use of technology seems slowly and, for me, sensibly to be being made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39339201

Surely this is the right way to go. Not sure what parameters are set for when it is used but I would much rather get the right result than have a point to debate over a drink afterwards.

 

[Albert's Chip Shop]

Yep

 

[JakartaToon]

Progress with the use of technology seems slowly and, for me, sensibly to be being made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39339201

Surely this is the right way to go. Not sure what parameters are set for when it is used but I would much rather get the right result than have a point to debate over a drink afterwards.

Good job as you may not have time for a drink if they end up reviewing a lot of decisions.

 

[Obi Wan]

Progress with the use of technology seems slowly and, for me, sensibly to be being made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39339201

Surely this is the right way to go. Not sure what parameters are set for when it is used but I would much rather get the right result than have a point to debate over a drink afterwards.

I'm glad you approve as the next step is to include these reviews during the Headline Games after FIFA were concerned by the poor quality of the officials and some contraversial decisions.

 

[jimileysbaldhead]

I'm all for technology, in fact I'm currently working on a bit of kit that will prove that Fredor's a tw@t.
I'm pretty sure I'm right, however irrefutable evidence would certainly help.

 

[Freddd]

Good job as you may not have time for a drink if they end up reviewing a lot of decisions.

Working out rules should be easy enough. I would suggest:

1. Each team gets one review per half;
2. Ref can request a review at any time.

If the decisions take 30 seconds to a minute, as these did, shouldn't interfere with the flow of the game.

 

[Albert's Chip Shop]

Working out rules should be easy enough. I would suggest:

1. Each team gets one review per half;
2. Ref can request a review at any time.

If the decisions take 30 seconds to a minute, as these did, shouldn't interfere with the flow of the game.

Good shout.
Surely the ref will embrace this too as it passes the onus onto someone else for contentious decisions.

 

[JakartaToon]

Working out rules should be easy enough. I would suggest:

1. Each team gets one review per half;
2. Ref can request a review at any time.

If the decisions take 30 seconds to a minute, as these did, shouldn't interfere with the flow of the game.

I would actually do like tennis and give each team 2 reviews to start per half and then lose these if they get them wrong but not if they are right and referee reverses decision. Ref then wouldn't have to use it at all - up to the teams to call for them to reverse a possible bad decision by the ref. Teams would I am sure hold one back just in case.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

I'd only use it if it does not impact on the flow of the game. I'd have to watch a few games with it in use to comment.

The premise of it is obviously sound. Anything to make the game fairer. However if, as I think it might, change the game and the way it flows to being more like rugby, tennis or cricket, then I don't want it. They have natural breaks. Even rugby is not what it was now. I sat through the 6 nations and there were times I thought it was definitely detracting from the game. They were going back right through moves looking for the slightest infringement. The games in question lost some of their passion as a result. It was like deflating a balloon or losing a hard on due to too much alcohol.

We've got to be careful. Cricket is a game that lends itself to video referrals - they can actually make a drama out of a not out/out decision. I like it. It is there to correct absolute howlers hence they each have 2 reviews every 80 overs. Realistically what is it to be used for in football? Every offside decision or just ones where a goal is the result? The odd corner or throw in where they get it wrong because everything happens in a split second? Who decides when it is used? The teams? If so what happens when there is a howler and they don't have a review? The referee refers it? I can't actually comment because I don't know what the system is and haven't seen it in use live.

I'm not against it but there is zero point comparing it with tennis, rugby, american football or cricket etc. Football has completely different dynamics and I'd have serious concerns this could be a killer for the entertainment. Everyone is different though, some people like the whole dramatising of a video review.

 

[Magnet]

As said I don't know what system is being used but my proposals would be

1. Each team has two reviews each half. If not used in first half then you lose it.
2. If successful review then you don't lose it
3. Referee able to review any time subject to 4. below.
4. Reviews only to address issues involving
a. Goals
b. Sending Offs
c. Penalties
d. Bookings

That should address most contentious issues and still ensure game flows as most of above if disputed would involve teams arguing with referee or linesman anyway. Perhaps not perfect but better than current position.

 

[Freddd]

I'd only use it if it does not impact on the flow of the game. I'd have to watch a few games with it in use to comment.

The premise of it is obviously sound. Anything to make the game fairer. However if, as I think it might, change the game and the way it flows to being more like rugby, tennis or cricket, then I don't want it. They have natural breaks. Even rugby is not what it was now. I sat through the 6 nations and there were times I thought it was definitely detracting from the game. They were going back right through moves looking for the slightest infringement. The games in question lost some of their passion as a result. It was like deflating a balloon or losing a hard on due to too much alcohol.

We've got to be careful. Cricket is a game that lends itself to video referrals - they can actually make a drama out of a not out/out decision. I like it. It is there to correct absolute howlers hence they each have 2 reviews every 80 overs. Realistically what is it to be used for in football? Every offside decision or just ones where a goal is the result? The odd corner or throw in where they get it wrong because everything happens in a split second? Who decides when it is used? The teams? If so what happens when there is a howler and they don't have a review? The referee refers it? I can't actually comment because I don't know what the system is and haven't seen it in use live.

I'm not against it but there is zero point comparing it with tennis, rugby, american football or cricket etc. Football has completely different dynamics and I'd have serious concerns this could be a killer for the entertainment. Everyone is different though, some people like the whole dramatising of a video review.

The majority of the time, the decisions will be made when there is a break in play anyway: a goal, an offside, etc. The only situation where an in play decision may come up for review is where a penalty claim is disallowed. Where that happens, the team should have to claim a review within, say, 15 seconds and the decision would be made when there is the next naturally occurring break in play.

Could put a 1 minute time limit on the video ref to make his decision if we want to ensure the game flow.

 

[Darren Peacock’s Ponytail]

I personally don't want any technology in matches. It is a game played by humans and ref'd by a human. All humans on the pitch will and do make mistakes. There would be no talking points about the game if this happens.

 

[haslam]

I personally don't want any technology in matches. It is a game played by humans and ref'd by a human. All humans on the pitch will and do make mistakes. There would be no talking points about the game if this happens.

In cricket people start arguing over which technology works well and which doesn't. Some teams are keener than others and basically people start arguing over other things and try to back it up with 'evidence', which they mostly don't understand. Takes some of the enjoyment out of it for me.

 

[Darren Peacock’s Ponytail]

In cricket people start arguing over which technology works well and which doesn't. Some teams are keener than others and basically people start arguing over other things and try to back it up with 'evidence', which they mostly don't understand. Takes some of the enjoyment out of it for me.

I agree. To me it is a game and not a business and in games we don't need technology. Business yes, games no.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

The majority of the time, the decisions will be made when there is a break in play anyway: a goal, an offside, etc. The only situation where an in play decision may come up for review is where a penalty claim is disallowed. Where that happens, the team should have to claim a review within, say, 15 seconds and the decision would be made when there is the next naturally occurring break in play.

Could put a 1 minute time limit on the video ref to make his decision if we want to ensure the game flow.

As I say I don't oppose it and it simply comes down to how it works in operation. What you describe is how people would like to see it working. That is the whole purpose of the trials afterall. I just don't think anybody can say with any certainty either way at present and we should tread carefully. You hear people say "its ridiculous we don't have video referrals in this day and age". I disagree because there are very real problems with interjecting into the game. We have something fantastic that has worked for a very long time. Before we go making changes that could completely ruin the spectacle, we should make sure it is 100% going to IMPROVE the game. That is what it is about afterall. If it simply means that we get more correct decisions, but we have to pay a price elsewhere, then that doesn't mean we have improved the game. It just means we've changed it.

I just know as an avid rugby fan, the game is starting to suffer a little from it. Some don't think so mind, but some think it is. Some of the delays around TMO's have become ridiculous. The world cup in 2015 was basically ruined as a spectacle for many fans. It was operating at something like 28-33 per cent of stoppages being down to waiting for video decisions. If that happens in football, then for me personally, they can shove it up their arse.

I think if we limited it to goals or offsides it could maybe work. It really does down to the parameters also. If a referee misses a foul in the build up to a goal, and the goal is checked, but the reason for it being checked is ok. Do we then go back to earlier in the move to where the foul occurred and disallow the goal? How far back? As I say I haven't read through the whole parameters of it, but its an absolute minefield in football if not set correctly.

I suppose the other thing for me is I don't have a massive problem with wrong decisions. Human error doesn't really piss me off that much unless its an absolutely ridiculous clanger. They are few and far between though.

 

[Heed]

So what happens to the thrill and spontaneity of the game?

Stopping and starting for no reason and other than offsides, the vast majority of decisions are subjective in any case.

I'm a Luddite and proud of it.

 

[Captainchaos.]

I think we should introduce some footballers into our game

 

[Lord Jonjomort]

As I say I don't oppose it and it simply comes down to how it works in operation. What you describe is how people would like to see it working. That is the whole purpose of the trials afterall. I just don't think anybody can say with any certainty either way at present and we should tread carefully. You hear people say "its ridiculous we don't have video referrals in this day and age". I disagree because there are very real problems with interjecting into the game. We have something fantastic that has worked for a very long time. Before we go making changes that could completely ruin the spectacle, we should make sure it is 100% going to IMPROVE the game. That is what it is about afterall. If it simply means that we get more correct decisions, but we have to pay a price elsewhere, then that doesn't mean we have improved the game. It just means we've changed it.

I just know as an avid rugby fan, the game is starting to suffer a little from it. Some don't think so mind, but some think it is. Some of the delays around TMO's have become ridiculous. The world cup in 2015 was basically ruined as a spectacle for many fans. It was operating at something like 28-33 per cent of stoppages being down to waiting for video decisions. If that happens in football, then for me personally, they can shove it up their arse.

I think if we limited it to goals or offsides it could maybe work. It really does down to the parameters also. If a referee misses a foul in the build up to a goal, and the goal is checked, but the reason for it being checked is ok. Do we then go back to earlier in the move to where the foul occurred and disallow the goal? How far back? As I say I haven't read through the whole parameters of it, but its an absolute minefield in football if not set correctly.

I suppose the other thing for me is I don't have a massive problem with wrong decisions. Human error doesn't really piss me off that much unless its an absolutely ridiculous clanger. They are few and far between though.

I think this is very well considered. The thing that can get forgotten is that football is about 90 minutes x 38 or 46 depending on leagues. Most decisions happen over seconds. Over the course of a season it's just impossible to think the outcome is decided over 2 or 3 moments of poor judgement; it's actually decided through the hundreds upon thousands of individual decisions made by the manager and the players.

Video replays could only really exist if there's reasonable doubt over either allowing/disallowing a goal (play has stopped anyway) or a red card (play has again stopped anyway). Possibly there's the argument that a penalty decision could also be subject to a video referee (slightly harder, what would be the resulting decision if it was deemed an accidental collision? drop ball in the box?!)

But then we're back at that phrase "reasonable doubt", which again is down to human judgement. Instead of throwing millions at technology and such, why not just turn more referees full time, make it a professional job up and down the leagues, with training, structure, promotion for good performance, relegation for bad and so on. There'd be no shortage of applicants. Is anyone telling me the Premier League cannot afford to pay 10 people £200k a year?

 

[Blacker-than-Knight]

When you have been relegated by one point and you can look back at the season and see two matches where perfectly good goals were wiped out because of a poor offside decision that would have been winners I am sure that you would think a review system is a good idea, how about the hand of god goal, or Henry against Ireland. This season we have seen some truly bad ref's and assistants, quite simply humans make mistakes and if we can have a system put in place that negates some of the howlers then I am all for it, I don't think that it would disrupt a match anymore than when a ref goes to speak with his assistant over a decision, players time waste over throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, goal celebrations and all manner of situations when they can anyway.

 

[Darren Peacock’s Ponytail]

I personally don't want any technology in matches. It is a game played by humans and ref'd by a human. All humans on the pitch will and do make mistakes. There would be no talking points about the game if this happens.

Funny old thread this one