I think we are all for technology with the right implementation DH. The question is whether any implementation could be "right", or will it turn out to alter the game in ways detrimental to it from both a player's and a spectator's points of view?
It's never going to be perfect, but surely it has to be an improvement on the current situation where blatantly wrong decisions are potentially costing clubs points, league status and with it a lot of money and broken hearts of fans on a weekly basis
Agreed, think how many points we lost to bad decisions last season?, we might have finished in the top ten if it wasn't for bad referring decisions.
Not a question of "minor" infringements Munky. An illegal tackle is not a "minor" infringement (unlike, say, taking a free kick a couple of yards from where the offence took place). And surely any infringement which occurs leading up to a goal is never a "minor" one since, once again, the outcome of the game and relegation or survival may hang on it, and so on. Two examples from our own recent history: (1) a throw in is wrongly awarded to the opposition, who take it quickly and score; (2) a corner is wrongly awarded to the opposition who score from it. Are those "minor" mistakes on the part of the officials? Also, it is easy to say that the use of technology will be limited to this or that specific type of incident. This is what was said about the goal line issue. But as we are now seeing, the rationale for introducing it -- "so much now hangs on getting it right or wrong" applies generally and any attempt to draw a line appears arbitrary against the rationale of introducing it in the first place.
How about we start drawing up a list of when a decision should be referred to the video referee (remembering that goals, penalties, sendings off, red cards etc. alter outcomes and "so much hangs on them"): Did the ball cross the goal line? Was the scorer offside? Was the player receiving the ball offside? Was the corner correctly awarded? Was the goal kick correctly awarded? Was the throw in given the correct way? Was the goalkeeper inside or outside the area? Was the foul committed inside or outside the area? Was the goalkeeper illegally impeded? .........................................................
I'm not sure a list is appropriate really. I'd prefer it to be on the discretion of referees. Football is such an unpredictable sport and I guarantee that some kind of unimaginable controversial event would occur that would not be covered by a prescribed set of potential events.
I honestly can't see how, with a bit of thought, a system can't be devised to cover most eventualities without significantly slowing down play, compared to the current stoppages when the refs are surrounded and berated. The argument "things will never be perfect, so let's stick with what we have now" seems bizarre to me. Why should a sport developed in the 1800's be forced to stick to 1800's technology? If currently the chances of a game having the outcome changed by a poor decision is 1 in 3, why shouldn't we strive to reduce that to 1 in 8? As people have said, big money goes into football, preparation for games is meticulous, why should the ref getting a poor angle at something have to ruin all that?
What I think should and shouldnt be reviewed in red. Most with a caveat that would come down to the appeal process. most of the above offences result in a stopage and a huranging of the ref, so if each captain has only one appeal per match they should only appeal when certain they have been wronged or important goal/red card decisions. And please lets start yellow carding players for questioning the ref, a captain should be able to clarify a decision and ask for the teams appeal, histrionics and swearing should not be tolerated from these rolemodels! Bah! DH beat me to it, couple of differing points but mainly the same!
My life is too short to spend another day going back and forth with Robbie so all I will say is to this DH
I can't see a problem with technology for major instances, possibly a review system could work. As for the arguement about game being stop start, surely injuries make a game stop start so perhaps we should ban them?
i personally think the game would be sped up by this. for a start it would stop all the players surrounding the officials, moaning and berating him/her. if unhappy with a decision a team could review a decision, give a fourth official say a maximum of a minute to look at replays, if no clear cut decision can be made the refs decision stands. it could work the same as tennis - 3 reviews per team - if you waste one its deducted from your total. if something controversial happens and you've wasted your reviews - tough! its the most exciting development in the game since the back pass rule was introduced and i think people who dismiss technology are personally afraid of change, not worried about the impact on the game. and anyone who thinks goal line technology is a waste of time can do one as far as i'm concerned! offside or a foul in the area can be viewed differently by individuals but whether a ball has crossed the line or not is not up for debate!! i don't really mind if technology creeps into other areas after goal line but surely this is a forward step for the game?
Originally Posted by robbieBB Did the ball cross the goal line? -Hawkeye (Therefore ref informed instantaneously) Was the scorer offside? -Hawkeye Was the player receiving the ball offside? - Hawkeye Was the corner correctly awarded? - The balls dead anyway, so what does it matter if it can be corrected by the time the CB's have trekked upfield I think the point here is if you introduce the tech, then the refs will always refer to it. The game may be stopped, but then centre halves would still then need to trek back and resume formation, this could easily be used as a cynical time wasting excersize. This is why I think the refs on field decision should always stand unless appealed Was the goal kick correctly awarded? -ditto Was the throw in given the correct way? - Directly leads to a goal so rarely (unless it's Stoke) that it's likely to have less impact over a season than goal-line technology Was the goalkeeper inside or outside the area? - Allow captains to refer it to video ref if they feel hard done by. Was the foul committed inside or outside the area? - If we're agreed it's a foul, the ball is dead so a video ref shouldn't delay play. But this right will preclude any possibilty of quick freekicks and invention Was the goalkeeper illegally impeded? - Only matters if a goal is scored, so the ball is dead, so the defending team could refer it upstairs. .................................................. ....... I'd add to that, that the game has changed, All this cry baby rolling around on the floor and lack of respect to the ref are small potatoes compared with the increased pace of the modern game. They all make a refs decision harder so why not help them when possible? Bah!
I agree with most of that except that 3 reviews is too many, I think there will be to many speculative and frivelous appeals sometimes to mearly disrupt the opposition. Bah!
how many controversial decisions that actually, truly impact a result happen every game? i think 3 reviews would be the maximum but it may be that 2 would work better - they might not get used in many games. just remembered when i was talking to a chap last season about technology and he was dead against it, his main reason being 'how would you restart a match after a decision is reversed? you see, it's not just saying if its a goal or not'. it was the most pointless point - there are numerous ways to restart a match but i bring it up because some people just do not want change and will argue any small reason against it. having said that, he was moaning about the ref getting decisions wrong so football can't win!
The CEO of hawkeye said recently that they are developing a system which can tell if a player is offside 2 seconds after the ball was played. Which could have an identical response to the goal line tech, alerting the linesman by a vibrating watch and announcement in his ear piece. This would only improve the game. Linesmen get criticised for missing bad tackles or incidents but the is normally due to them watching the line. With hawkeye taking on offside too it would allow the lines men to watch the game better and give better opinions on incidents. Combine this with retrospective bans for diving and a citation type system like in rugby and I feel football refereeing would be back in the 21st century without ever slowing the game down with reviews. I think it could be the best thing to happen to the game.
I think 2 reviews maximum per team maximum, perhaps each team is given 1 review per half. The only problem i can foresee i teams using up unused reviews at the end of a game if they are under the cosh to break up any momentum. as they do now with players going down feigning injuries.
It's called attritional warfare Munky! DH, nobody is against change, IF it's REALLY for the better. I though have seen too many instances of Hutber's Law: "better" means "worse", or "changes introduced as improvements are actually the opposite" to be sanguine about how things are likely to turn out in this case.
i remember the 'traditionalists' moaning about how the back pass rule would change football for the worse. i personally think it's revolutionised the game and made it a far more entertaining sport. why can't technology do likewise? in rugby for example, its extremely exciting waiting to find out the video refs decision over the scoreboard. why wouldn't that be the case in football? this 'it'll slow the game down' nonsense drives me potty. it's one of the most stop-start sports there is! there are so many natural gaps in a game of football most people don't even notice them occurring. the ball is only in play for about an hour every game.
They couldn't have watched our semi-final in the FA cup against everton then, Jesus 1 goal to the good and then spent the rest of the match with the back 4 playing 1-2's with the keeper! I think it is mostly the fear that the stops will get considerably longer, this is why I would only like limited captains reviews and the ref to only be able to call it as he see's it. In rugby they are now so fearful of making an error that even on the most blatant of tries they are going to the TMO. This does slow the game down. A ref is likely to do the same in football so leave it to the captains to risk their limited reviews. Bah!
