I've asked this before but it's worth a revisit. There's been the usual torrent of debate all season about decisions made by referees. My view is: Man up, refs do the best job they can but, just like human beings, they make mistakes. Live with it. Write into TV rights deals a clause that prevents TV showing replays of refereeing decisions at anything other than full speed and grow up. However, there are plenty of people calling for technology to help make decisions. The argument seems to run "Let's have it, it'll make things work." There's never any detail. So, what are your detailed suggestions for how this could work. What decisions should be up for review? How are reviews of decisions initiated and by whom? How are they carried out and by whom? How long can a review take? Who has the final say? How far can play be pulled back? Genuinely interested. I see it as pretty much unworkable but someone might have a solution. Vin
I love the idea of refereeing decisions not being replayed ad infinitum on TV - that would actually be good for the game. This is bit long and rambling and having read it twice I'm still not sure it makes any sense but I've resisted the temptation to change it or not post it. It stands or falls as it is... NHL ice-hockey has had the video replay decision for ages but only on goals, and if the referee stops the game to review so-be-it. After all isn't that part of being a bit 'grown-up' too? What they also did, in a sport that is twice as quick as football and virtually non-stop is have two linesmen and two referees, not sure that would work in football but it helped hockey. I think reviewing free-kicks and penalties is the tip of the iceberg because how can you say one should be reviewed and another not? I think it is probably best not to review free kick and minor decisions at all. FIFA would probably have to create major and minor offence categories. Reviews for perhaps off-the-ball incidents, sending-off decisions, penalties and obviously goal or no-goal assisted by a fully responsible off-field official who is in open com-link with the referee, but the referee should be allowed to decided if they want to review a decision or not after being contacted - the referees decision on the pitch must always be final. If it is a major decision that it is 'major' and the game has to stop. The referee on the pitch should always have the final decision and once an infringement is logged that maybe he missed he can blow immediately, (they already do with flagging linos), unless he feels a genuine advantage is being played. A review can take as long as it takes - after all players who appear to be dead can hold a game up for a long as they like. Managers and players should never be allowed to ask for any reviews on decisions. Another help would be a complete and honest assessment of how the game, clubs and players especially, is run and played at the top level. For instance, 'he felt a touch and so has every right to fall-over', no he frickin' doesn't that is bullcrap and every player, manager and pundit knows it. Stop appealing and arguing every decision and any player that tries to instigate a booking or sending off by action or word in the opinion of the referee should be dismissed from the field. Pulling and shirt tugging in the penalty area before a corner should be penalised whether the ball is in play - there would be loads of penalties and bookings and dismissals but if the officials stood their ground it would stop. But overall professionals need to reassess how they approach the game - and due to the money involved that is never, ever, going to happen. With video reviews, I'm thinking that once things settle down it would not be too much of a imposition on the game's running time but there most certainly would be a transitional period where everyone would have calm down and sit back and see how it worked - including the most conservative fans in the world - British football supporters.
The final decision must remain with the onfield official and unlike cricket the ref, not the players should decide if a situation is to be reviewed. The 3 big areas that affect the outcome of game are penalties/offsides and sending offs. Penalties and offsides are really difficult to review and as much as I would like it there are more questions than answers. Sending offs on the other hand are straightforward. The ref has stopped play anyway. If he can use technology to check it was right to send the player off or if the yellow or neither was more appropriate then let's get the call right. Also if the ref has missed an incident that has left a player for example on the ground with a bloody nose, play has stopped, review what happened and sort it then rather than retrospective punishment
Whilst I am happy with goal line technology and the fact it is being used it ironically covers an issue where it only comes into question a handful of times a season. There are dozens of wrong decisions on penalties, offsides and sending offs each week. I am not criticising referees but with the speed of the modern game they need help.
I've thought about this a bit and have an idea how I think it should work. No doubt I haven't fully considered every possibility but that's how it goes. To answer the original questions: What decisions should be up for review? Everything How are reviews of decisions initiated and by whom? Reviews are the sole preserve of the officials. The on-field referee should always make a preliminary decision on an incident but can also contact the TV officials and ask for that decision to be reviewed (even while play continues - in that situation the on-field referee would make his preliminary decision but could ask questions of the TV officials if play continues as a result of the preliminary decision). I'd also have two TV officials so they can review decisions while play continues. If the on-field referee has requested a review during a stoppage in play then he would also be able to view the footage himself if he wished. I would try to encourage referees who are no longer physically fit enough to do the on-field stuff to take roles as TV officials. How are they carried out and by whom? If the on-field referee asks for a decision/incident to be reviewed then he would ask the TV officials a specific question or questions, as in rugby. The TV officials would also be able to review decisions on the fly and could pull the game back if a clear mistake has been made. How long can a review take? I wouldn't want to give a concrete answer without some testing. You'd need to experiment with the exact time limits in friendly or training games to see what works and be prepared to alter the limits as the system beds in and various situations are dealt with. My first thought would be that you allow more time for reviews when play has stopped than reviews taking place while play continues. I'd have no problem varying them but my estimated time limits would be: Review during a stoppage in play - 1 minute In-play review - Play can be pulled back for 30 seconds after the incident. If it takes longer than this to review the decision then the incident isn't clear-cut enough for the original decision to be overturned. Who has the final say? If the review is requested by the on-field official then it works like rugby and the on-field official makes the decision based on the answers to the questions he's asked the TV officials. If the TV officials are overruling then realistically they have the final say, but this still gets fed back through the on-field referee. The TV officials should only use the overrule power when a clear error has been made. How far can play be pulled back? As above, I suggest a 30 second time limit but this would need to be tested and reviewed. You obviously wouldn't pull play back if the team the reviewed decision would go in favour of has gained an advantage while play has continued. So if Clasie got fouled on the halfway line, the ref missed it, allowed play to continue and Saints scored 25 seconds later you wouldn't pull play back for the free kick.
I actually think that we (football) is missing one big issue. The game has changed so much in terms of athleticism and referees don't appear to be in great athletic shape, with the exception of a couple. Moss for example yesterday is a prime example. I think we need to be getting referees into the game younger and earlier. The system to become a referee is too slow. Take our very own Tom, who I believe is 24/25. What level do you referee at Tom and from where you are now, with the best fair wind behind you, what is the earliest age you could be a ref? I mentioned previously that we could have young rejected professional players, or trainees, taken into a fast track training scheme. We may end up with fit 26-33 year olds trying to keep up with professional players rather than fat 40 year olds. It isn't the only answer but it would be a step in the right direction. Maybe we need more than one ref on the pitch to keep up?? This system should be funded by the Premier league and a proper referee training centre should be developed. £90m for finishing last in the Premierl League next season? How about £80m and that extra £10m taken from every club (£200m) used to fund it. We have the most popular and richest league in the world; we should be able to get this right. I know I am a big critic of the referees and that is because I don't think the standard is good enough, but it is not their fault. We want better, then the first step for me is not investing in accessories, invest in the people. How much has goal line technology cost and how many times has it been needed?
You may be right and those times are to some extent plucked out of the air. I definitely wouldn't want every decision to take that long. There might be situations where you need that bit more time though. So yeah, test it in some friendlies, maybe trial it in an age group tournament, and go from there.
I would rather each manger have 1 challenge for each game and when they see fit they use it for a questionable decision. This way the game won't be stopped every 10 minutes and they won't use a challenge for a 50-50 call. If the referee has control over when to use the TV official he would go there every time for a big call and that would take too long.
I really don't agree with any team being able to make any challenge at all. Any review system used must be done by the match officials. We need to focus on how we can improve the decisions made by the officials rather than give teams an window to question them. Everyone seems to have made the leap to technology being the next step and I am not against technology being used, I am just wondering why we aren't looking at how we can improve the human aspect. I think there is a big gap that can be closed. Teams should still be left in a position where they have to accept the decision, whether that be an on pitch decision or a reviewed decision with technology. Please don't give them the theatre of deciding when a review should happen.
I wanted to become a ref a few years ago but it was never promoted anywhere and its probably too late to start now. Also to young guys thinking about getting into reffing you can see with the abuse they get at all levels of the game they would be put off. On a side note does Sian Massey still officiate?
If the power to review is only with the officials I can see more problems than it would solve. Some referees would use it all the time, some would hardly ever use it. Players would bitch about the inconsistency of using it. Leave the referee free to officiate the game.
See here is the problem. You say leave the ref to officiate and I say that teams shouldn't be able to challenge as it will be abused. What I'm really saying is do more to help them officiate it better. My comments on fitness I believe are relevant.
Personally I would like to see two more officials. These should be posted from the 30 yard line round to the centre of the goal. That way all officials would have a better view of the game. The Human error part of refereeing would still be there but it would be cut down dramatically. Also I would like to see the assistant referees actually take more part in controlling game. Not just watching for the ball to go out of play as they seem to !!!!!!!!!!!!! They seem frightened to help sometimes which maybe because they are so far from the action at times.
Some suggestions are almost a framework for ruining the game. All part of the modern desire to be protected from everything. Let's take a great game played all round the world and change it by slowing it down and interrupting play......but hey, what does it matter as long as we don't have to live with the fact that human beings make mistakes. And by the way, human beings looking at videos will still make mistakes and be unable to make a clear decision, but they will just take longer to do it.
I took that first question to mean "Which types of decision could be reviewed?" Some people would limit technology to line decisions for example. You wouldn't necessarily review every decision but you could review any decision.
We could make referees jobs a lot easier by addressing the culture of cheating that has become endemic in the game. Almost every player in the professional game seems to be trying to con the ref at every opportunity; pundits, most of whom are ex players, constantly justify these behaviours. Coaches at all levels are either complucit, or reluctant to recognise the problem. Personally I'm sick of seeing players drop like they've been shot by snipers whenever they lose possession then roll around in fake agony. What chance has any ref got in those circumstances? Get a bit of honesty and trust back into the game and reviews - which imo would kill the game - become unnecessary. Big task though.
I agree 100%. Get the clubs and players to tidy up their act and things would improve immediately. Won't happen though - there is too much money in the game.
