The funniest bit in the article is Harry saying... "The game is so much quicker today and can switch wings in an instant, and I defy anyone with 2 legs to keep up with Gareth Bale when he's on one of his 70yders!"
I'm not thinking too small at all, it's you that's thinking too small. I'm very happy with my views on this I continue to support UEFA's correct innovation of bringing in two goal line assistants to help with these matters. I also think that goal line tecnology is a good thing, and maybe in due course video replays and other technological input, but football is nowhere near ready for anything more radical than goal line technology ATM. Oh and Harry is wrong about two refs
Assume ALL Refs on the pitch have to agree with a decision. If one Ref disagrees, the Main Ref's decision is final, just as it is now. 1 Ref has the probability of success at 95% (figure made up for this example). He gets it right 95% of the time; 5% chance he is wrong. 2 identical Refs have a success rate of 95% each. 0.95^2 = 0.90 = 90% = There is 90% chance both Refs get the decision right. 10% chance one of them is wrong (and the decision falls back to the Main Ref). 1 ref = 5% chance of getting it wrong 2 refs = 10% chance of one getting it wrong (and the decision falling back to the Main Ref). 3 refs = 14% chance... 4 = 19% 5 = 23% At no point does increasing the Refs increase the accuracy of the decision, only the chance of getting it wrong (and reverting back to the Main Ref's decision). So, adding more Refs does not help, it only hinders. You could change the assumption. e.g. A vote by Refs on all decisions? Would only work with even numbers of Refs. I can't think of any more that don't lead back to the Main Ref overriding all and thus being pointless. (Been a long, long time since I did proper maths - someone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't mind being wrong. I wont take it personally.)
This is where forums fail. When I typed "You're" I was looking at the whole thread, not your post. I know my post is below yours but it wasn't directed at you. Perhaps I should have wrote something different. Perhaps I wont make a habit of posting from my phone. --- It's a multi-billion pound industry and the best thing the authorities can think of is stick another man on the pitch? Unbelievably small thinking.
Inda - I agree with you, its the only way forward if clubs want perfect decisions, take the human in the black on the pitch, out of the equation on dodgy decisions, I've said this before that technology will not slow the game down. Whenever you see an incident in a game, the TV viewer has seen every angle possible while the players are still surrounding the ref moaning. A video replay official in direct radio comm with the ref would eliminate poor decisions, ref grief, and REDUCE WASTED TIME!
You can't remove humans from the decision making process, though. You can add more or give them technological advantages, but it'll still be a human making the decisions, ultimately. You've missed out a number of variables in your equation, Inda. You've assumed that all refs will have an equal chance of making the correct decision, for a start. If Ref A is 10 yards away from an incident and Ref B is 60 yards away from it, then they won't have an equal chance, regardless of any other variables, such as the quality of each official. Having 4 assistants should result in somebody getting a better view of each incident, when compared with 2 or 0 assistants.
In the saints forum they don't seem to understand that Kaboul would never have got the first yellow card if it wasn't for the ineptitude of the referee to start with. I have practically given up with that section they are so stupid over there. I just want there to be technology used like it is in Rugby for goal line technology and offsides etc. That's all we need rather than more refs.
All the advocates of technology will I suppose win the day in the end and it will be introduced. Very sad in my opinion and another nail in the coffin of football as the exciting unpredictable game that it is. It's interesting that we always have this debate when we are on the wrong end of poor decisions but are happy to gloss over the matter when it goes our way. Most major changes to the game have not improved things for the spectator or player mostly they suit the people who are interested in the financial gain they can make from it. Let's take the changes to foul play as an example. Reckless tackling has always been covered by the rules of the game in Association Football, but following some famous and, most important, televised fouls, the rules were changed to prevent certain types of tackling. The result? Diving comes into the game in big way, so we have encouraged cheating and for the most part accept it as 'professional play'. So let's introduce technology to 'improve' the game, Inda is even suggesting we take humans out of the decision making process all together. So where do you stop do we take human players out too? Let's just play it on computers and take out all chance of mistakes and cheating. Technology has already ruined Test Cricket for many and the players were quick to develop strategy's to use it for their advantage, so yet more rules had to be introduced to cover that. I do not expect to win this argument (sadly) but the longer we can put off this further spoiling of the great game of football the better. Yes we were robbed by poor refereeing at Stoke but changing the game as a whole (and don't try and convince me that it won't) because of the odd poor game, is far too high a price to pay IMO.
Goal line technology is coming soon, I look forward to other technology coming in when the time is right. But I certainly share some of Spurf's concerns. An example of the problems that technology has to deal with. A defending player handles on the line, the ball is cleared, his team go up the other end and score. Is the goal then chalked off, the play brought back for a penalty, and the player dismissed. How much aggro is that going to cause? What happens if the handball is hard to detect, as sometimes they are. How long do we give it, before chalking off their goal and dismissing the player?
Having seen instant replay significantly slow down the (already torturously slow) pace of the NFL, I have mixed feelings about bringing it into football. It has made the calls more accurate, though by no means has it made them perfect. (All sorts of reasons why--sometimes it's because replays don't apply in all cases for all things, some because even with a slow motion view the officials blow it, and a few, interestingly, because even technology can't figure out some close calls.) The best step, to me, would be to increase the quality of the officials by a rigorous training and selection system, accompanied by higher pay. NFL officials are part-timers and do about as well as high school principals and accountants would figure to do. Baseball officials are highly paid, constantly judged, and work their way up to and down from the major leagues based on reviews--and, surprisingly enough, are much better. As bad as bad calls are, I'd take them, on balance, over moving dangerously nearer to the stand-around-and-wait-for-the-call, take-another-commercial-break, do-anything-but-play-the-f*cking-game NFL (and NBA and MLB). Watching a foul called, followed by a player race to put the ball down and start playing again, is still a kind of thrill for me. The only tech I'd bring in would be to see whether the ball crossed the goal line. It should be easy to implement, and should give a fair verdict very quickly. Here's my rule improvement for the day: a real card for a fake one. Any time a player does that Barca wave the invisible card thing, the official should wave a real one right back. Easy way to get rid of an incredibly annoying example of bad sportsmanship, and one I'd love to see.
Goal line alerts should be simple and probably would work quite well as in tennis I could live with that. But even hand balls are contentious: was it deliberate or accidental this kind of decision is common in football and all the technology in the world will not 'prove' it either way it all comes down to the referees honest opinion and he will not always get it right. It is possible to have very excellent referees as the Italian (What's his name?) proved. Lets concentrate on that as RW&B says rather than the robot route.
Afraid your maths IS wrong. But partly cos of the necessary dodginess of the model. Put it this way: if there's a 5% chance of getting it wrong, the probability of BOTH getting it wrong is only 0.05 x 0.05 = 0.025 or 2.5%. So (complex way of saying the bleedin' obvious) the chance of both refs missing something is only half that of one ref missing it. Whether the main ref listens to the other ref is another matter. But you'd think they would, wouldn't you? You've definitely decreased the chance of something not being seen by anyone.
i'v seen commentators look at several replays of an incident and still come to different conclusions - video can only be used for matters of fact eg. ball crossing the line - some commentators still claim englands third goal in the 66 world cup was over the line
I've really got a lot of sympathy for Spurf's excellently-made points. I just wonder, though - how often in a normal game are decisions not fairly obvious? How many times in a game would someone watching the same TV pictures that we all see actually tell the ref, via an ear piece, something like "Hang on - that was a foul"? I honestly don't know. I keep meaning to watch a game and think about it but I'll be very surprised if it's not the case that the vast majority of decisions are uncontentious. I know what someone'll say - that the instances of going to the pictures will increase and increase - that every other throw-in decision will be challenged. Well first off I bet 90% of decisions like those are obvious (but that's only a guess - I may be waaay wrong). And secondly it depends how the tech is used. Say there's a guy watching the videa with radio-contact with the ref (just an idea off the top of my head). All he does is feed him information. The ref can ask for clarity if he wants. But any instances of players hassling the ref for video replays is, as it is now, unacceptable. Mistakes will still be made; there will be times when the video-watching official or the Sky editing team don't see the need to replay an incident that the ref got wrong, maybe the video-watcher will still make mistakes. But the big decisions will be right more often overall. (And don't worry - Sky, or any other interested parties, don't have to do the editing - I'm sure football can fund officials learning editing skills). My feelings on this boil down to the simple fact that, whilst watching the World Cup final there are billions of people at home who saw the penalty/goal/off-side within a couple of seconds of it happening yet the person to whom this information is the most relevant in the whole world (the ref of the game) is NOT ALLOWED to look at a monitor that is there anyway by the side of the pitch. It's just absurd.
I must now add I only agreed with Inda's post 27, in that there's a better way than an extra ref. Humans can only see things at eye level, view often obscured by other players. A ref can over-rule a linesmans offside call, so why can't a video ref or advise the the ref on the pitch too? Surely refs would welcome it, because tragic decisions can mean a demotion to lower leagues. Managers and teams want more accurate calls, give it to them.
One problem with video refs and the like is that they require quality technology. Many games are played that couldn't justify the expense of such technology. Presumably the Prem and Championship clubs can afford it, but what about Blue Square clubs or Ryman league clubs? Where is the line to be drawn? Of course, a line can be drawn, but it's a difficult one. Can second division clubs in Albania or Angola afford the requisite technology? I don't know the answer, but universality has been a problem re 'technological innovation', and I guess it still remains one. Maybe FIFA will let some countries and some divisions use the latest technologies etc, maybe they won't be happy about a technological divide in a global game.
