Sepp Blatter has said that each manager would be allowed one challenge per half and that the TV companies would be responsible for the replays not the officials. I definitely want this to happen. Referees need more help.
I'm not sure about this - some incidents can have 4 people watch it about 6 times from different angles and at different speeds and still not come to a clear conclusion between them.
I can see the challenge being used strategically by managers. For example, the ref waves away a penalty appeal, the game hasn't stopped and the defending team is on a break....the manager appeals which stops the game and prevents a good attacking opportunity for the other team. impetus is lost. TV reviews only really work when a game has lots of natural pauses, for example tennis and cricket. And Blatter is not suggesting a FIFA approved system, but the normal TV coverage. He just loves publicity...Blatter just loves being in the headlines....obviously he's getting bored now.
This is my problem with it. How long does someone have to challenge? I've argued this point before.If it's as short as ten seconds you could even end up with a goal at the other end. The solution to all this is for football teams to man up and accept that you win some, you lose some. Pellegrini said it the other day about a penalty decision that didn't go his way. He just said, "That was one of a lot of decisions; we should have played better" If every manager was that mature, football would be the better for it. Vin
Not sure I agree Fran. There are plenty of natural breaks in football whenever the ball goes out of play, so if a challenge could only be made when the ball was out of play that would stop managers using them tactically. Tough if a penalty is retrospectively awarded to a side who have just conceded a breakaway goal, but if it should have been a penalty, then the breakaway goal wouldn't have happened, and if it was not a penalty on the replay, then no harm has been done. Normally though, challenges would be made when the ball has gone for a throw in or a goal kick or something innocuous. It would, of course, have to be the next time the ball is dead after the incident that is being challenged.
He has said it will only be allowed if play has stopped, I think it could be used strategically to stop a team gaining momentum. I could see Mourinho doing that to make sure his side takes a lead into half time etc.
In which case, the problem is as bad, just different. There was a period of possession of about three or four minutes at the WHU game when we were passing it all over the shop. It may have been five minutes since the ball was dead. So, in that case, there could be a review of something at the start of all that and the game go back five mins? Surely not. That way, Big Fat Sam could have replayed that five minutes on demand. Plus, how many times do three pundits on MOTD have a split decision? Probably the majority of times. It's unworkable and teams should play to the rules which basically say the ref's decision is final. Managers should grow up and accept it. And TV companies should stop dissecting every decision on a frame-by-frame basis, accept that the ref makes a decision based on what he sees and move on. Vin
With you, Onionman. Why ruin the game we love by fiddling it with it? I bet that any such change would be abandoned very quickly. As it's based on having excellent TV coverage from every angle, it would have to be trialled at a high level and it could only be applied at a high level. Close calls are often being discussed 2 days later...how long would an official have to make a decision...seconds aren't long enough for many decisions...have we got time to get a drink from the bar or visit the loo. There are rare occasions when mistakes are made and could be corrected easily, but I bet it isn't many. We all accept goal line technology now, but how often has it been useful when you consider the cost.
This also ruins (as it has in cricket) the idea that what is played on every single football field is the same game, by the same rules. If village cricketers are mature enough to accept mistakes, why weren't international teams? Will my son's football manager have the right to pass on a decision to a committee of parents who can review their home video footage? Will they hell. Vin
It's still the same RULES. It's the policing of those rules which can benefit from technology. I see no problem with the highest levels, with the most financial risk and the ability to pay for it, having a technological aid that lower levels do not. BTW how often did you have proper linesmen or even sometimes qualified referees when you played as a kid? (Or TV for that matter?). I don't get the argument that every footballer, everywhere in the UK, should have exactly the same technology or it's a non-starter. I don't recall having "Hawkeye" when I played tennis or cricket. I never had electronic timing and photographic evidence when I took part in athletics events, either.
Do not agree with managers having the ability to challenge a call by the referee but the referees should be allowed to check that goals scored are legitimate with regards to offside and diving for penalties.I know people are gonna say that it will slow down and break up the flow of the game but in the 2 instances above the game has already stopped. It will only take 30 seconds or so to validate a decision ,no longer than it takes for a faking professional athlete to realize that he has not been shot by a snipper in the leg or that he is not on fire and can stop rolling around on the floor trying to out the flames....how many counter attacks are stopped because teams have to put the ball out of play because a striker with the first touch of a rapist has lost the ball and is now rolling around claiming a penalty or that he has had his leg broken by a fair challenge......a review system with retroactive punishment for cheating will also help,...it has certainly cleaned up rugby(thugs and fwd passes) and cricket(LBWs and dodgy catches)...why is the richest, most popular sport in the world so against change?
Ha. Here is conundrum. You get one appeal, right? So, you are fifty/fifty on whether you should get a penalty. The other team goes up the pitch and scores a blatant offside goal. Do you appeal for the pen, and risk conceding the goal, or play it safe and appeal the offside - but lose out on the pen?
Find myself agreeing with Chilco. Just use it when the ball has gone dead. That's effectively stops the tactical use of it unless one team decides to kick the ball into touch with a signal from the manager. Also, saying something is unworkable suggests that is has been tried. Not that I'm a huge fan of interim measures. To my mind there needs to be more electronic back up to the referee at the time of the incident, not retrospective action or challenges. I wouldn't want a rule or law to become established in football only to to stick around long after a bit of technology makes it redundant. Goalline technology is fantastic and I would like to see more along the same lines, such as identifying a true offside or not. For example, Graziano Pelle's disallowed goal against WHU the other day, when he was in line with Joey O'Brien. I make that 4-1 or 3-1 again if you deny us that paarticular corner, Mr Mike Dean. and there was that clear corner denied us in the first half, Mr Allardyce. We could have scored from that..!
To the first point, I say again: " There was a period of possession of about three or four minutes at the WHU game when we were passing it all over the shop. It may have been five minutes since the ball was dead. So, in that case, there could be a review of something at the start of all that and the game go back five mins? Surely not. That way, Big Fat Sam could have replayed that five minutes on demand." Anything at all that stops the game can and will be misused. Look at the number of players who roll on the floor in agony purely to get the ball kicked into touch so that a breakaway can be stopped. Happens all the time. What I'd suggest is that the supporters of the idea try to be a bit more concrete about what they want trialled. Will there be a panel of people reviewing? How many people? How long for a review to be called? What can be reviewed? Could BFS review the corner he disputed despite the ball having gone live again thanks to quick thinking by Saints players? What happens when somethig isn't adequately covered by a camera? Down to what division does this work? How do the fans get told? Details like that mean you won't just be saying "yeah, reviews will help". You'll be able to support concrete ideas. Vin
I feel it should only be used to appeal against penalties or offside goals. Straight after an offside goal there is going to be a pause whilst the team celebrate or the lino having his flag up. That can be easily done, the penalty appeals on the other hand is a different matter. It's ok if you're appealling against the penalty but the other way round, there will be no stop in play.
Think it will see almost every penalty decision given being contested by the defending team's manager....which will become frustrating. In the same way that in cricket almost every LBW decision is celebrated half-heartedly becuase the bowler knows that the batsman will appeal it and they'll have to wait and see.
The pundits disagree for the sake of disagreeing, makes better telly. 9 times out of 10 a decision could be reached with the help of replays, if it can't, like in cricket, the original decision stands. I think this technology should stop players arguing decisions to much, the ref can say, if you think it's wrong then challenge it. Then suddenly they are not so sure.
