Fair enough, but I replied to DMD’s post at random from seemingly adverse views.
Video ref to be trialed...
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
How can you just discount the whole system as a joke. They're only just trialing it. Please please just give it a chance.
It won't be technology that ruins the game it'll be ****ing Sky.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42278119
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42278119
I couldn't have said it better.
If there is one lesson in life all would do well to learn it is that good intentions often lead to actions which have the opposite effect of what is intended. Video refs is one of them. Here in the States, the NFL has been using replay for about 30 years now, and every change makes it more pervasive without fixing the problems it previously created. Major League Baseball began using replay a few seasons ago, and they still don't get all the calls right. Moreover, it is a sport where the "TV timeout" has lengthened the average game length from 2 hours to 3 hours, such that a long series of rule changes have been implemented to shave a few minutes off game times, yet replay reviews stop the games until the challenged plays have been resolved, adding those saved minutes back into the game and then some. The worst is probably the NHL, which can review plays which occurred minutes before in actual game time. A team can carry the puck into the opponent's zone, pass the biscuit around for minutes, then score. But if the replay reviewer determines the puck was carried in offside, even by a fraction of a second, the goal is nullified. That has happened quite a bit, including key playoff games. I would much rather put up with the human error introduced by on-the-field referees and leave technology for things that can actually improve my life.
I'm not massively against increased technology, but I think it's the wrong issue to be focussing on.
Yes, referees make wrong decisions some times. 9 times out of 10 though it's in favour of the bigger side or the home side. That isn't because of a lack of view, it's a lack of balls and a bad attitude. If they want to improve refereeing, they need new directives around diving to stop the nonsense idea of allowing players to choose to go down. New directives on wrestling at corners. These are obvious things which don't require an eagle-eyed referee - just someone with the balls to say these are the rules now and they will actually be implemented.
I find it frustrating that football is pushing some issues so hard, while others are ignored. Technology seems to be gathering pace all the time, and there appears to be a huge appetite for introducing blatantly tokenistic rules relating to the recruitment of managers. Yet progress on introducing rule which fans want, such as protecting clubs from unscrupulous owners, preventing name changes, colour changes and such, progress on standing and regulating ticket prices is painstakingly slow or non-existant. These are the important issues. The ones which threaten the game. Supporters are falling out of love with football over this stuff, or can't afford to go to games in the first place. No one has ever walked away because of an incorrectly awarded penalty though, or a goal which was 'scandalously' awarded despite being 2 millimetres offside.
Yes, referees make wrong decisions some times. 9 times out of 10 though it's in favour of the bigger side or the home side. That isn't because of a lack of view, it's a lack of balls and a bad attitude. If they want to improve refereeing, they need new directives around diving to stop the nonsense idea of allowing players to choose to go down. New directives on wrestling at corners. These are obvious things which don't require an eagle-eyed referee - just someone with the balls to say these are the rules now and they will actually be implemented.
I find it frustrating that football is pushing some issues so hard, while others are ignored. Technology seems to be gathering pace all the time, and there appears to be a huge appetite for introducing blatantly tokenistic rules relating to the recruitment of managers. Yet progress on introducing rule which fans want, such as protecting clubs from unscrupulous owners, preventing name changes, colour changes and such, progress on standing and regulating ticket prices is painstakingly slow or non-existant. These are the important issues. The ones which threaten the game. Supporters are falling out of love with football over this stuff, or can't afford to go to games in the first place. No one has ever walked away because of an incorrectly awarded penalty though, or a goal which was 'scandalously' awarded despite being 2 millimetres offside.
And video refs also get some decisions wrong.
They get some right, they get some wrong.
It detracts from the game. Just bin this ****.
What next ? Playing in bare feet and replacing the ball with a 12 inch cube concrete block to prevent long-term head injuries !
Mind you, we wouldn't concede many late goals, so I'm all for it.
Mind you, we wouldn't concede many late goals, so I'm all for it.
One of the purest joys of watching football is celebrating a goal. If video refereeing puts this in doubt and stops that feeling of joy / relief etc, then it cannot be a good thing. I don't care if my team loses a game due to bad refereeing, it is not that important. I get the feeling that people in favour of video refs are watching on tv, those against go to the games. Maybe a generalisation, but I'm sticking to it.
They get very less wrong than the on-field ref would. Would rather an accurate game myself.
You are perhaps right there, I will confess that I am not fully convinced either way and maybe never will be.
Goal got disallowed tonight in Sydney derby after a blatant handball. Took less than a minute to be reversed while the teams waited for kick off after the goal. Barely disrupted the flow at all.
‘Less than a minute’ is still bloody ages
Let me know when it’s down to less than 3 seconds
Refs take more than 3 seconds without technology.. VAR is someone sat in a room reviewing footage, it's not like goal line tech.
That "less than a minute" took as long as it would normally take to restart the game after a goal where you see two to three replays before play restarts. Instead of restarting in the middle the ref just grabbed the ball and it was a goal kick.
I'm sure there'll be instances where it takes far longer than people will want, but it worked perfectly last night.