No offence Robbie bor, but your argument is sounding a little bit backward to me. I'm for a gradual, progressive implementation of technology to 'fix' the extremely flawed game that is association football. If we can get GDS right and ensure it does not hamper the 'flow' (even though the ball is out of play for around 20mins per match anyway!) of the game, I see no reason why we can't use it for other decisions.
I didn't see the Chelsea--Villa game (I was watching Arsenal dismantle Fenerbahce ), but what I think you are suggesting JR is that video refereeing should be extended, not just to questions of fact like "did the ball cross the line?" but to the on-field officials' interpretation of events which they have seen and made a decision on. I don't believe even cricket or rugby use technology for that purpose.
The way i look at it is there is 2 different type of decisions, definative and opinion. Now goalline decisions is a basic yes or no, there is no interpretation needed from the ref so the use of technology is a no brainer for me. the same could be said for offsides etc. the problem is when you get to fouls, handballs and dangerous play. that is all open to differing interpretation from referees, basically the ref on the pitch might take it one way, yet the video ref could have a whole different perspective on the incident, neither ref is wrong and neither is right. take the benteke incident, i haven't seen it but already i have heard to different views on it from unbiased parties, one said that the chelsea player had his arms raised so must go, but on the other hand some are saying that benteke was looking for it? how is video technology going to help when it is all down to opinion? so for me goaline decisions and offsides fine, anything other i'm unsure about.
No danger of offence being taken JK. What the introduction of technology is meant to "fix" is NOT "the game of football", but quite simply football played at the very top level, at which level huge sums of money are at stake, and all kinds of vested interests come into play which make referreeing mistakes costly (literally). There's only one answer to the question of what makes refereeing mistakes so critical as to need elimination to the greatest possible extent: big money.
You are asking for reviewing of a decision already made by the on-field officials in cases where interpretation is involved (whether of a rule itself, or the intent of a player, or whatever), yes? So a referee's decision made in the course of a game is to be reviewed and possibly overturned by another referee glued to a video screen; and if on the basis of WHAT HE SEES ON SCREEN and HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES AND/OR EVENT the original decision was incorrect, it is to be over-ruled? Are you really suggesting that JR?
Even in the case of offside there is a distinction between "in an offside position" and "offside", and that difference sometimes hangs on interpretation e.g. whether the player was "active" or interfering with play. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for the video referee to fail to spot something that the on-field officials saw, e.g. the ball flicking off a defender on its way forward. The idea that the video ref has a definitive view is completely mistaken. You could decree that the video ref's decision is final, but that would be as arbitrary as the present situation.
We have a similar situation already in place - was it Tamas of WBA who elbowed Vaughan in the mouth at the start of the 11-12 season, referee awarded nothing, but the FA banned the WBA player for 3 games on the video evidence. Sorry Robbie, but I AM suggesting it, as the extra official could have a better view of the inicident, as well as having the option of viewing it from different angles.
i can't see why it's so upsetting to think that the officials might end up being overruled by another official. do assistant referees not overrule the initial awarding by referees sometimes? how is it any different to that? we see retrospective decisions made by panels - these don't effect the game that they really should effect! they end up effecting a game a week or two later against another side
in my opinion it should be the man in the middle who makes all the final calls UNLESS challenged. this then puts the emphasis on the players being honest enough to say if they feel it was a foul, offside, handball or whatever. if they waste their teams challenge on something pointless it could cost them later in the game when they may have a genuine cause for appeal. if you get your appeal correct you keep your appeal for later on. it's not a difficult thing to bring in - as long as there is a timer on a video ref making any call. if they run out of time without deciphering the correct call, the refs decision stands. simples
I think the biggest problem is supers, that unlike cricket, a lot of decisions made in football is largely based on opinion/interpretation of rules or incidents rather than hard facts, if a video ref overturned a pitch refs decision it wouldn't stop the moaning afterwards. classic case is the use of the word intent in the football rulebook, one mans intent is another mans accident. the use of video evidence is to stop mistakes happening and helping the ref, not put them under more pressure.
The Tamas incident, if I remember correctly, was a case of retrospective review of something missed by the referee at the time. Not at all similar. Secondly, while the video referee MAY indeed have a clearer view, he equally MAY NOT. So either you have to have some way of deciding who had the best view and resolving any difference of interpretation by discussion between the officials, or you arbitrarily assign the power of making a final decision to the video referee. With regard to which, the video referee does not have the same experience of the game as it has unfolded prior to the incident; the on-field referee is actively referreeing from the moment the game starts. The video referee is asked to look at specific incidents.
Robbie makes a good point about the pitch ref probably has a better interpretation of whats going on in the game, there may have been words said between players earlier. any little niggles that may have happened. etc
This could be resolved by the ref being in constant contact with the TMO, and use specific wording, he already goes and asks his linesmen what they saw for big decisions whats stopping him asking, "did that hit his hand?" "was that in the box?" "were both feet of the floor?" "any reason why I shouldn't award a penalty". the wording is important and allows the ref to get information on things he isn't sure about. this is how it works in rugby, there is a different between the ref asking "try/no try?" or "any reason not to award a try" the first gives the the TMO the decision but the second he is only looking for specific evident that it isn't a try even if he can guarantee that it is.
Perhaps that is the middle ground we are all looking for, rather than having a person in stands waiting to overturn a decision, perhaps they should just be there to offer an opinion and to help rather than overrule? don't get me wrong, I think we should use technology in the game to make it better, but it has to do just that not just to add a bit of excitement to the game.
I think it would have to be, you have to use all the information that you have to hand not pass the decision off to someone else. I think giving the teams reviews would end badly but giving the ref access to more information would be very helpful.
You could say the converse though, an independant official not coloured by previous interchanges is more likely to judge each exchange purely on the merit of that exchange. For example; after a heated exchange a player who has appeared to have been agrieved tackles the other player who , subsequentley although not touched, throws himself to the floor writhing in moch agony. The ref will not only not have the bennefit of any replays or alternative angles but his decision may be further influenced by the previous onfield coming to. The decision the ref makes will not only then hinge on his view of the incident but unfortunitely what colour shirt the player is wearing. If red at old trafford he'll wave play on if yellow/blue/brown etc then he'll brandinsh cards. In a nut shell my main support for the further introduction of technology is fairness. I know that the bigboys get more decisions (And I realise that in part that is because they may have more of the ball or be in the opp area in the case of penalties) but there is an inherent bias, it has been too obvious, for too long, to too many, too not have at least a proportion of truth. Give me 16 officials and a fighting chance of a penalty at OT, SB, E etc and I'd be happier! Bah!
