So many bad decisions by referees; decisions that in many cases can be argued to have decided the result. When you watch a match on TV and there is a controversial decision it takes about 10 secs, in 90% of cases, to establish, without doubt, whether or not the decision was correct. All it needs is a 4th official sitting comfortably inside watching the game who is on hand to confirm or override the referee's verdict when called upon. The captain of each team should be allowed 3 appeals to be decided by the 4th official (just like in cricket). On appeal to the referee, the 4th official would be asked to make a decision and display the decision on the scoreboard. This would make decisions more acceptable, the referee would not be held responsible for the final decision and the amount of time taken by the process would, in virtually all incidents, be less than the time wasted by referees being surrounded by players and having to calm them down. It's quite simple. Why don't they just do it?
this ones an interesting debate that you often see, personally (though ill often say differently after a Saturday) dubious refereeing decisions are part of the game that we love and maybe it should stay as it is. appeals work in sports like cricket and rugby which are very stop/start anyway, a single passage of play as oppose to the continuous fast-flowing sport that football is. due to this the appeal system and potential permiatations as to what could/couldn't happen I think would be too confusing and hard for the FIFA to cover just about every possibility. also, what about decisions that are still dubious, as a certain amount of interepretation is required. you see decisions where pundits and fans disagree after seeing it 10 times, so we could still be getting "wrong" decisions only less excusably in my opinion the introduction of goalline technology was correct, but I wouldn't introduce any more technology to it
No additional technology involved Jose. If it wasn't instantly clear from a replay the appeal fails. It would have to be indisputable for any decision to be changed. When a decision is heavily protested the referee faces a lot of harassment and often goes to the linesman before play recommences. If there was a procedure in place where the ref simply calls over the captain and asks "Do you wish to appeal?" (assuming he has any appeals left) there would be less chaos. If the captain says "No" game continues and everyone cools down. If he says "Yes" then the 4th official will have already looked at the incident on playback and could instantly display the result.
I do think football shoud borrow the sin bin from rugby as I have seen far to often this season a red card sending off is a too harsh a punishment at times while yellows are pointless
ok, say a winger is running close to the goalline and is "fouled" by the defender as he puts the ball across. the keeper then takes it, boots it upfield play continues and the opposition score. the home captain appeals for the penalty, which replay shows is not correct. however replay shows that the ball, as the winger crossed it, travelled out of play. does the referee restart with a goal kick as that was what the replay showed despite the team not claiming for it, or does he start with a centre from the goal scored as the team did not appeal THAT decision, but rather another in the same movement. sounds weird, there are a lot of other combinations which would be hard to regulate. plus it would never stop the protests! players would then begin protesting the reviewed decision (sounds bizarre but they would!) also, would the ref be able to call the replay into play if he wasent sure himself, as oppose to relying on either team to call on it? and how about lower leagues, I remain irritated that there is no goalline technology in league 2!!!! despite me moaning, I don't actually think its a terrible idea btw!!!!
