A few months ago on here we were debating the introduction of goal-line technology. A common view was that it was a no-brainer: a way of removing all doubt over a specific match result-changing decision, simple enough to implement, and without any real downside as regards the conduct of the game. I recall Michel Platini, who has always been unreservedly opposed to it, being ridiculed, and a few dissenting voices on here, my own included, warning that it would prove the thin edge of a very thick wedge leading to the demand for its extension to other equally result-critical referreeing decisions such as offside "goals", award of penalties, sending offs et.al. Furthermore, once introduced, it would be in constant use, since no referee in his right mind would risk the vitriol from fans and media for taking the responsibility on himself, and getting it wrong. So very soon, every goal will be reviewed for offside and every penalty-box incident and physical confrontation scrutinised by the video referee. This was pooh-poohed and dismissed as scare-mongering but ........... ........ surprise, surprise, a day or so ago who else but the new chairman of the FA, Greg Dyke confirmed that precisely what the dissenters predicted was "inevitable": "Greg Dyke, the new chairman of the Football Association, believes it is âinevitableâ that the sport will adopt video technology to judge controversial penalty and offside incidents..........." (The Telegraph). Told you so. Are you looking forward to the new experience that will be watching a stop-start football match refereed from an office in the stand?
HMMM - I'd quite like to see it for penalties/sendings off decisions, as they don't always happen in every game, but not beyond that. I'm not in favour of practically every refereeing decision being questioned, but if it puts an end to the 'shirt/arm/body holding' that happens at almost every corner/free kick (and has cost a few penalties, but we've never had one awarded to us for the same infringement), then that would be a good thing.
If it significantly reduces or totally erases refereeing incompetency, then I am not sure why you do not seem to approve. If an Arsenal player is offside and they score against us (again), I would like to think with the right technology in place, it would not be allowed to stand. When there is so much money at stake, and the financial impact of relegation as a consequence of a string of poor decisions, overall I am in favour. As opposed to just writing the idea off as a 'bad un', I am happy to see it in place and see if it works or not
Also it could benefit 'smaller' clubs to get a fair deal. How many managers have you heard to say "we'll never, ever get a penalty awarded at Old Trafford". Well, if the video review system is used - and policed correctly, it would level the playing field for clubs like NCFC. Wonder if its imminent introduction had anything to do with Grant Holt's recent departure to Wigan
I would be happy for this to be introduced. Maybe, as in other sports, you could introduce a maximum number of video reviews per team though to stop it interrupting the flow of the game.
Looks like I'm going to be in the minority when I say that I hate the idea of technology being introduced into the once beautiful game. I don't care if mistakes are made by referees as long as they are genuine things do 'even themselves out' over the course of the season, it's not the game's fault that so much money has been thrown at it. I would be interested to know what era people think was the best for football in general, personally for me it has to be late sixties / early seventies. Hard men playing a hard but fair game, when if you rolled around on the pitch after a tackle you would be ridiculed for it
I don't see a big problem either, and never totally understand the argument about how the game will become "stop/start". Name a sport that doesn't? Cricket, tennis, golf, snooker, basketball, hockey all have noticeable gaps in the action, and so does football already in terms of injuries, substitutions etc. I personally don't have a huge problem with this at all as long as the correct decisions are ultimately made and that justice gets done. The game is too important and with too much at risk nowadays for blatant mistakes to be brushed under the carpet with the old "they even themselves out over the season" mantra, which doesn't actually mean anything and has never been proven. I wouldn''t want it to be used for every little decision, but for the big ones like offside goals, was it over the line etc - which shouldn't take long to review and confirm/correct - its use for me it remains a no brainer
I think it depends on how it used, if it's used for every decision it could get quite annoying but for red cards, offside, and penalties it would be ok, mainly because there aren't that many per game. If we had a video ref for the red card decision against Bunn for instance that game may well have turned out differently and we wouldn't have been stuck with Camp!
I would say that certainly on last season's evidence, most certainly things did NOT 'even themselves out'. Take the Sunderland game as an example - they should never have had a penalty and we should. I stand by my earlier statement that if it's used in the right context it could be a benefit and visiting teams at OT could be awarded a penalty!!! Oh well - I can dream!!
I can't stand the term 'things even themselves out'! We shouldn't have to rely on vague statements like that in order to justify blatant flaws in the game we love!
The game already stops for penalties, sending offs and off sides so why is having a review system that'll take mere seconds to give you a more accurate answer a bad thing? The ref can make the calls as the game goes but the review can let him know if he misses anything. Simple.
You'd also hope it'd reduce diving from players if you have the official on the side letting the ref know when he's being conned.
It needs to be introduced for my money but very carefully. for example in the instance of a possible penalty, I would like to have the play continue or stop if the ref gives it and an additional official review it either during the stopage (lets face it all the defending side will have surrounded the ref and be delaying tthe game anyway) or in the case when it is not given an alloted time e.g. 20-30 seconds. If they ejudicate that it was in fact a penalty the game and clock can be pulled back to that point and the penalty taken and continue from there. If with video evidence and use of slo-mo a 4th official can't give it in 30 seconds then it could be considered ambiguious enough that the defending side should get the benefit of the doubt. The bigger the team the more decisions appear to go their way, so it can only benefit the rest of us. The careful really comes in in that football and the best matches are ones that really flow with few stoppages and if done wrong this could reduce it to a horrible stop start affair. So whilst it could be a good thing, I kind of agree with Robbie in sentiment. It can only be a bad thing because those who will implement it are a moronic bunch of cronies who will doubtless cripple the flow of matches and it will all end in tears. Bah!
Wouldnt mind it being introduced, but would have to be done in a sensible manner so its not used every few seconds. Would very much like it to be used for retrospective action such as diving, incidents where a yellow card has been given or ref saw the incident but got it wrong etc. If players were punished retrospectively Im sure some of the less desirable behaviour would stop. And please sent them off for swearing at the officials.
What is an offside goal? I.E. at what point leading up to the ball being put in the net does it come to matter whether a player was offside or not? As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), in rugby, what started as a question about whether a player grounded the ball over the try line without being in touch, is now a matter of that question plus whether any infringement occurred in the play leading up to the "try", e.g. was the final pass to the try scorer forward, was a defender illegally blocked off etc. Or, at what point does a prior infringement which went unpenalised cease to be relevant to the scoring of a goal? E.G. a player is dispossessed by a foul tackle on the halfway line, let's say by Gerrard or Rooney, who then send a long pass forward to Suarez or Van Persie on-side in the opposition penalty area, who score. Should the goal stand? Regarding pauses in games, just consider how many complaints you hear about referees who "won't let the game flow". I.E even as things currently stand, a referee who spectators regard as whistle happy, gets stick, even when the game pauses for just a few seconds each time. The fact that there are other sports which have interruptions to the flow of the game built into their rules is surely irrelevant; we are talking about football. It has throw-ins and free kicks and that's it in the normal course of the game.
I'm personally all for technology, with the right implementation. If Hawkeye can tell you in less than a second if the ball has crossed the line, its not too much of a stretch to think a similar system for off-side calls could be introduced, and the speed of the decision wouldn't slow down play. It might render linesman all but redundant though. Hawkeye can't do everything, so where video replays are needed, a review system like cricket could be used. If a penalty isn't given, frequently the ball either goes dead or ends up in the keepers arms. At that point the 'wronged' side can confer on the decision and review it if they feel confident. If it was a penalty, it's given, if the attacker dived, he's booked. I don't think giving the team two reviews a game would slow things down too much, and if you make it so only the captain can ask for a review, his teammates will then surround him not the ref, and it takes some of the heat out of decisions, and probably reduce petty 'fights' too. Anyway, just my $0.02
If he is onside then yes I didn't suggest that borderline fouls should be reviewed as a lot of the time whether a foul has been committed or not is subjective and even after watching replays people have different opinions so I would leave those up to the officials on the pitch. Offsides and whether the ball has crossed the line or not is easily decided one way or another with the benefit of today's technology so as I said in my post these would be the ones that I would have reviewed. I accept my use of "etc" was vague, but I did say I wouldn't advocate its use for minor fouls, and I meant this regardless of what happens at the end of that particular passage of play
