How would it help? Would you have the video ref butting in throughout the game everytime he sees a foul? Or have it like Rugby whereby the ref on the pitch asks the video ref to look back on an incident?
That is where a trial would be beneficial to see if video replays would work and which approach would be best.
Probably a mix of the two. The whole point of a video ref is to catch things the on field ref misses even if it is to take action retrospectively and it would be a huge help to a ref to be able to clarify issues he is not sure about.
But it relies the ref seeing the incident in the first case! If he doesn't realise there was a backpass he wont ask for the video ref to check! Players will try & get the ref to go to the video ref over every ****ing incident in the game unless there are clear guidelines.
Hawkeye in the GAA is a waste of money. It will be put up in the loft alongside the sinclair c5, betamax and global hypercolour t-shirts.
That is where the video ref comes in and his radio link to the on pitch ref comes in. If the video ref catches an incident he gets on the walkie talkie and let's the on pitch ref know in real time.
Unworkable. You'd be there all ****ing day with all the shirt pulling, foul throws etc that the ref misses. What happens when there is an incident we all see on the tv at home but the video ref doesn't?
If millions of people see it and the video ref doesn't then he shouldn't be a video ref. The refs themselves also need to play their part though and be strong enough to wave off the frivilous stuff. As I said a trial is the only way to determine the pros and cons with any accuracy.
Can somebody tell Chico Jetset that Sepp Blatter said a couple of years back that amongst the fundamental principles of football is that the rules can be applied evenly across all levels of the game. This was his argument against technology.
