I had a question why we did not show replays at St mary's so thought I would email the club. Had the below response which thought might be of some interest to you all: Thank you for getting in touch with regards to our stadium big screens, and my apologies for taking a little while to get back to you. The first thing to say is that in an ideal situation, we would love to be able to show replays of every chance and incident on the stadium big screens. In recent games we have been showing them more frequently â Jason Puncheon's goal against Manchester City last week for example, was shown twice immediately afterwards. It is something we endeavour to do when possible. However, the Premier League have strict rules on what we are allowed to show or, perhaps more accurately, what we are not allowed to show. The 2012/13 Premier League Handbook details that we may use our stadium big screens to show 'live action' and 'when the ball is not in play, action replays of positive incidents'. The screen shall not be used to show 'action replays of negative or controversial incidents; any incident which may bring into question the judgement of a Match official'. We are also not allowed to show any footage of either of the two dugouts. To provide a bit of context, every one of our matches is filmed by a 'host broadcaster'. That would generally be the BBC, Sky or ESPN. We take their live video feed, including replays, and put them onto our stadium big screens. Whilst it is fantastic to be able to have their live feed going into the stadium, we have no control over what they show. This means we have to act with a high level of caution and cover some replays up to avoid showing anything controversial. For example, Rickie Lambert scored the opening goal in our 1-1 draw with Norwich earlier this season. Replays showed that he clearly controlled the ball with his hand before striking it into the goal. The replay wasn't shown on the big screens. If it had been, then the referee would have seen that the goal should not have stood. The club would likely have been fined for breaching Premier League rules by showing this replay. Unfortunately, just like the fans in the stands, we only have one look at an incident. We don't get to see the replay before putting it onto the big screens, therefore we have to act with caution when deciding what to display. If we are 100% certain that an incident is not controversial then we generally show it. However, if there is an element of doubt we cover it up. It's interesting that you mention Arsenal showing replays at the Emirates Stadium. Arsenal recently got into trouble for showing replays of an opposition goal which was clearly offside. The referee saw the replay, and it caused a lengthy delay whilst the situation was resolved. Arsenal approach replays with a less cautionary approach that we do, and whilst fans may enjoy watching television replays again, it has caused them problems with the Premier League. I hope that explains why we are able to show some replays but not others. Whilst different clubs have different policies, we tend to air on the side of caution.
I knew that this was the case already, but have to say that's a surprisingly well-written and comprehensive response from the club on the matter, good on them.
They should get two people at the ready to re-enact any exciting moments of Fifa, and play that on the screens. Easy.
Interesting stuff and I'm glad the club take the more cautious approach to replays. Cheers wheresmeguly
It also puts into perspective precisely how easy it would be to employ technology to aid officials in real time doesn't it?
I remember at a world cup (think it was 2006) a goal was ruled out for offside and a replay was shown that it was in fact onside and all the players on the attacking team surrounded the assistant. This is exactly why Saints and the other teams with screens (not QPR for example!) have to be careful what they show and what angles they show incidents at.
It does, though it has to be said that most contentious incidents are still contentious even with the benefit of replays.
I appreciate how open they are with it. It'd be easy to disregard it as "oh we're not allowed to show many" without going into detail but an honest and comprehensive report is impressive.
We showed more replays when SMS opened, but pretty soon that stopped. Crowds don't need working up by seeing events that can't be changed. Nice clear reply from club.
Yes it does, and how quickly even ordinary TV broadcast technology can work if used properly. It sort of makes all the rigorous testing into goalline technology a bit of a PR stunt. We know it works, we know it'll help, so get it installed and stop the delays. Earliest definite is 2014 World Cup..? Isn't the Premier League keen to have it by next season..?
Rickie's handball was correctly not penalised by the referee however. So still not sure how TV replays help us decide whether an action was deliberate or not...
It was 2010 I think, if I'm remembering the same incident. It was a Mexico goal, and I think it was Andres Guardado who was denied.
On the contrary, there was some controversy around the incident because it wasn't seen by the referee, but allegedly by the fourth official on a TV replay: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5164616.stm Of course they came to the right decision, regardless. It's only their stupid dogma over not using TV evidence that brought this on them.
I thought that the 4th official had seen it with his own eyes. I knew the referee didn't see it and was told by someone else.
I think that's a bit of an urban myth, if the 4th official did watch a replay on a monitor, someone other than Domenech would have seen it. Luckily for the ref the 4th man spotted the headbutt, if he hadn't then **** would have gone down.
