I'm sure this was introduced a few seasons ago but it was never really applied consistently or often enough.
As most people seem to be saying, it couldn't be for the 'opinion' things but for the situations where a ref or linesman has simply made a wrong decision i.e. given a penalty when it is clearly a dive, why not? The decision could be changed quicker than waiting for all the arguing to die down.
I think I've answered your first point: the video ref would only overrule when it's a really obvious mistake. For 50/50 calls or even when they are fairly sure but not entirely sure, they stick with the on-field decision. Players would get used to this and they wouldn't abuse the system because they would just waste their review. I think the review would happen immediately. If you go with the premise that each team only gets one review then there isn't much scope for stopping counter-attacks. If there's a really contentious decision of the sort that might be reviewed then play often pauses for a second while the players look at the ref to see what he will signal, so an effective counter is unlikely in that situation anyway.
I agree with what SBN is saying about reviewing decisions whilst the game is still active. It will be too complicated to be workable without being abused for a bit of gamesmanship. I think it would only be workable for reviews once the referee has blown the whistle. Then the other team would have the right to appeal or like in Rugby the video ref is only utilised by the official to confirm decisions. So instances like the infamous Lallana Penalty appeal would not be part of the review system, but the flip side is that officials would be more inclined to blow the whistle on decisions they're not 100% on knowing they have the safeguard of the video evidence.
First I think you have to accept you will never get to 100% correct decisions so I'd focus on eliminating the really poor decisions. I'd just have a video official (or even video officials) watching the feed and in continuous contact with the referee. If the referee wants to consult them he can and if he makes a clear error then they can advise him what they can see.
I like it, just get someone to watch the game on TV and shout at the ref. we all do that already so it would be virtually free to implement
Anything in game cannot be done as it is such a quick game. If a linesman raises his flag when it isn't offside what happens? players see a flag raised and stop. You can't just carry on then review it. player handballs and referee plays on goal scored up other end and then referee hears through earpiece that it should have been a penalty. can't do it. The goal line technology is instant fact with no interpretation where it either is or isn't and the ref knows within a second. The only think I would like to see video reviewing used is retrospective punishment or correction where cards were or weren't issued correctly. i.e. if a player was booked for diving and it wan't they get the card taken away. If someone is given a red card yet didn't touch the player and he dived then that can be corrected. As to the 'keeping it the same as sunday league'. then any swearing should be a sending off (I've seen that no end recently lol) and of course you would also have to ask the question...Do the village greens have hawkeye on them?...Do the park tennis courts? The answer is no. You can't suggest the the elite level of any sport cannot be improved because it would be different to the lower levels of the same sport.
I do wonder how the crowd would take it. You'd get a riot if Milwall scored then a review took the game back to a penalty against them. But the core problem for me is not any of this; it's the fact that Joe and I can have diametrically opposite opinions about the Beckham Simeone incident. Very good coverage from three angles ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zTne4JzgBM ), very different opinions about the outcome from Joe and me. So, what happens in that situation? Joe's on the pitch, I'm in the review box. Joe gives it, I rescind the decision. It's an opinion on the incident; it's not cut and dried (even though both Joe and I feel it is). I think THAT'S the sticking point. Vin P.S. I was right, Joe was wrong, of course...
As I've said several times, if the video ref is not completely certain the on-field ref was wrong, the original decision should stand. As for pulling back play for a referred decision after a goal, that would never happen if the game is stopped immediately. I think there are simple answers to most of the problems that are being raised, frankly, and most of them have already been answered. If there's any contention at all about having players able to challenge the ref, that's solved by Puck's suggestion about a TV official simply watching live coverage and communicating with the on-field officials in real-time, which would probably solve a lot of issues with no real downside, and the final decision would remain with the referee.
Regardless of the details of the incident itself, then in the Beckham Simeone incident then if I'd been in the review stand and Joe the referee (or vice versa) the on-pitch decision would have been reversed. We are each "completely certain" that the other is wrong. And I'm sure that five minutes of searching would give other incidents with diametrically opposed views. You see it on MOTD when pundits see the same incident and just don't agree. Two people can have a diametrically opposed view of an incident. Vin
I've always noticed how, on sky sports for instance, they can show high-def all-angle replays seconds after an incident takes place; allowing the commentators to make up their own minds almost immediately. The commentators are a better equipped jury on the match than the referee and his assistants. They should have a 5th official, who has access to the same pool of live action replay camera footage that the tv channels get, to mutter into a microphone and help the referee make a more accurate decision.
Genuinely interested in your opinion of what happens ref referrals for decisions not given. So, someone refers for what they think was a pull on a shirt in the penalty area. The ball's still in play. (I know this can be read as a combative question but it's just a genuine one as to how you would see it working). Vin
As mentioned earlier, if there is a system in place that can back up or overide a decision that has been made then the ref's may make more decisions in the attacking teams favour (which as spectators you would generally want to see more goals). Marginal offsides for example, may not be given straight away to give the benefit to the attacker. Once the goal is scored or shot saved, then there can be a quick check with the video ref who will say yes or no to the offside. The same with penalty appeals, give the penalty and then check to make sure. You could have a panel of 2 video ref's to confirm the decision. So in Vin's Beckham analogy there would always be a deciding vote. Not sure I like the idea about reviews for the teams as it is open to manipulation. Tactical timeouts and the like. Leave it for the refs to help each other as they do in rugby.
Don't think I'd ever like to see it happen as it would be too big a change for me to the football I know and love to. If it were done I agree with this post that the manager could have one challenge per game, otherwise things would get very messy and drawn out
Not quite what I meant. In this case referee has clearly seen offence and judged it to be red card. TV official wouldn't be able to overrule that unless he can see something which brings that decision into question. Would have to be something really major like no actual contact or intent, or mistaken identity or something. Difference of opinion on whether it should be red or yellow where a case could be made for either means the on-field ref's decision stands. Game would have to be stopped immediately the challenge is made. Too risky to let play continue until ball is dead. I think with only one challenge per team this is unlikely to be abused or cause any issues. If the challenge system is considered to be problematic though, can still have a TV official to assist referee generally and not have formal challenges. Would be responsibility of officials to keep game flowing and not introduce unnecessary stoppages. I'm sure it could be done.
Who would you see as being the one responsible for requesting the review? The manager, captain or any player on the pitch. How many seconds do they have to make it?
I still think there would be grey areas of disagreement. A solution that came to me at about 4 this morning (I know, I know) was that you have two TV officials, working separately. That way, unless both disagree with the referee (i.e. decision is awful), the decision stands. There'd still be areas for argument but maybe less than otherwise. I see the idea that the game needs to be stopped for the reason you mention however in the Man City home game last season we had a corner and they scored on the break. I've just taken a look on Saintsplayer and from the ball being in the air over the Man City penalty area to being in our net is 16 seconds. So if one of our players had been fouled in the area something would have had to be done in 16 seconds or the ref would have been left telling Man City that their goal didn't count. I'm not sure that's going to turn out well if the intention is to reduce controversy. I know sixteen seconds is unusual but it's not that unusual. I hadn't really thought about this but it's another difference from Rugby, Cricket and Tennis. They all have a series of natural breaks where decisions can be made. A little less so in Rugby, but the advantage rule in rugby lasts much, much longer than in football, so there's more readiness to go farther back to restart play from a much earlier decision. So after all this debate I can see that it might make sense in principle for some yes/no decisions but I'm still very doubtful about the practical aspects of more nuanced and time-critical decisions. Vin
I don't like this idea of someone, "requesting" a review. It can work in tennis, or American football because of the natural breaks that occur in those respective games. But even waiting for the ball to go out of play in football won't work because it would just get kicked out in the way it does for injuries now. Funnily enough although I am broadly in favour of its use I have noticed in rugby that the referees are getting more and more reliant on it. Hardly any tries get scored now that aren't referred to the video ref and referrals are also made to detect foul play. It is getting boring! I think that if a video ref can spot something absolute and get get a message quickly and without interrupting the game, fair enough. If not, then I have my doubts. Where it could and should be used more often is in dealing with issues retrospectively. So, if someone is spotted diving or shirt pulling or anything else that was missed by the ref on the day, players could still be booked or "sent off" after the game.
That's how it works in American Football isn't it ? Team appeals against a decision and the Ref ( or what ever he is called ) reviews in himself I think ? Good idea IMHO .
