Are two refs the way forward?

Harry Redknapp seems to think so!

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11675/7376643/Redknapp-wants-to-see-two-refs

People seem to be determined to change the rules in the Premier league and Champions league recently and theres suggestions coming from all sections of football, Fifa, managers, players,ex players and even politicans.

Do you guys think that two refs would stop some of the errors, or just over complicate things, would it even be practicable?

 

Why bother when technology would be cheaper and miles more effective?

 

Nah, I don't think it's a good idea to add somebody else onto the pitch. No idea what the big deal is with giving the 4th official a monitor on which he can watch the football match and radio the ref about stuff he's missed. Would see incidents far better than a 2nd ref and stays nice and hidden out of the way. What does the 4th official even do anyway? This would at least make him useful.

Yeah, this is basically a far better worded version of my long winded post never mind.

 

Leave it as it is (in terms of fouls etc.), it makes football what it is!

 

I think the argument would be that this would be better for the likes of ground roots and amature football, where obviously technology isn't available, as well as top flight football if they refuse to go down the technology root due to it being unavailable to everyone.

Ne one in rugby seems to bothered about this though...

 

As a football fan who watches other sports I've noticed that in both Tennis and Cricket that each player/team is entitled to a certain amount of wrong appeals during a set/innings, this could easily be put into Football this would also cut down on the level of dissent received as if a team disagrees with a decision they can call for the TV replay, for instance if both teams in the Stoke v Tottenham game had the right to appeal the wrong decisions during the 2nd half then the correct decisions could be reached. Also Cahill wouldn't have been sent off at Tottenham as Atwel was the only person in the country that ever thought it was a red card.

 

This could be used tactically though, football is fast paced and free flowing rather than slow and turn based like tennis/cricket.

 

True, but if the ball was in play and a team did do that the game would re start with a free kick to the other team.

 

Bit harsh if you're on a supreme counter attack 3vs1 and Pulis or some moron like that shouts to appeal something pointless a few seconds earlier because he wants to defend a free kick with his massive beasts rather than face a 3v1.

 

Seems to work in the International Rules series (a hybrid compromise between Gaelic football and Aussie rules played over 2 tests each year) where each ref officiates one half of the pitch. Wouldnt match technology but would reduce referee fatigue (huge influence on decisions for many reasons e.g. unable to catch up with play, thought process inhibited etc.) and improve decisions to a degree

 

True but if it was up to the players then they will be concentrating on play and there would have to be a noticeable wrong decision for it to be used, for instance if someone got pushed on the halfway line and no free kick was given then I doubt they would appeal.

 

Players dive to gain an advantage.

If they can gain an advantage by legally challenging a refs call and getting play stopped to prevent a goal scoring chance, they probably will. Im not sure if appeals could be integrated into football as well as they work in the likes of Tennis.

 

But if the referee has ruled something he is obviously certain of it, so what makes one decision more noticeably wrong in his eyes than another? It just creates a big vague area. But aside from that, this rule still has the potential to be abused, even if you have doubts that players would abuse it because they'd be concentrating, they still could abuse it and I wouldn't put it past, say, Stoke to find the best way of doing so. Having a 4th official simply watch the whole thing on the sidelines with a good monitor and radio connection to the ref would interfere with general play far less and doesn't have the potential for abuse.

 

It could be argued that wrong decisions has and always will be part of why football works. Over a season you get many decisions go both for and against you and in a weird way it evens out.

 

Bet you wouldn't be saying that if the ref gave an undue penalty on the last day of the season that ruled us out of the title!

 

Too right I wouldn't But, on the flipside, it could balance out that penalty we got at Man U.

 

Yes but if the referee had the right to say no if he felt someone was abusing it and book the individual then that might deter people abusing the ruling.

 

Haha yeah, you have a good point. It just gets to the point where there's so much balancing going on that you can't even work out if one team got screwed over more than another; over the course of a few seasons there could be a team that gets 10 terrible decisions go against them and another team none at all - it's all down to chance which is infuriating as hell especially when you think of the training and work put in.

 

That just adds even more annoyance though. If the ref has the right to instantly dismiss the appeal then it's totally worthless. He could dismiss something and card the guy, then later on TV see that the guy had a point - much to the annoyance of thousands of people. Also if you're suggesting that he only books them after accepting the appeal and seeing it on the screen, it still interrupts the game and potentially ruins situations like that counter attack moment I described. Players 'take one for the team' all the time by pulling people down for a yellow.

 

Good point, though if it was only for major decisions for instance, incidents like the Silva penalty incident or the Cahill sending off at Tottenham.