IFAB have approved a two-year trial period for the FA and English football to use video replays. Appearing in the Football League from next season. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...rees-set-trialled-Football-League-season.html DTLW
If the plan is to use a league, outside of the Football League, will the video coverage available, be good enough? Even with blanket coverage, from umpteen cameras at Premier League grounds, decisions are still debated ad nauseum, without reaching total agreement, so I'm left thinking that grounds with fewer cameras might not be the ideal place to trial this. Perhaps the FA Cup might be better, from Round 1, when League clubs, with better camera facilities, are involved?
I still await seeing the details of how it's planned for this to work. The devil in this case is, very definitely, in the detail. How exactly will challenges to decisions be made? When? How much time will they have to challenge? Will managers be able to challenge during an opponent's attack (a recipe for tactical use)? If not, who decides if something is an attack? If it's a decision at dead-ball, will they go back five minutes if it's been that long? How much time will they have to review? Will the video ref's decision be final? Details, details, details will kill this dead, if you want my opinion. Vin
I don't think football lends itself to managers challenging decisions. For me, the video ref should be used in a similar way to in rugby and mainly be there to answer any questions the on field ref has. Having said that, because of the way football flows more as a game I would also set it up so the TV ref is able to contact the on-field ref and advise him if and when a clearly incorrect decision has been made. It wouldn't lead to perfect decisions every time but it should eliminate howlers.
The slow speed will be in the human element, not the technology. It's how it's implemented, and how far it goes, which will be the decider. I'm against manager challenges to decisions. Basically, a video ref or two could do the job, and quickly, or failing that, the fourth official could have a bit more to do. I'm sure there will be the usual purist wailing and gnashing when play is brought back 10-20 seconds because of an obvious foul committed, but unseen by the on-pitch referee. But I won't give a toss. It's about fair play and skill, not getting away with things to gain an advantage. Might be the end of the dive!
I agree. It might actually cut down on the number of goals incorrectly flagged for offside or incorrectly not flagged if the play continues until the ball goes dead or a goal is scored. If the ref can then ask the TMO "is there any reason why I shouldn't award the goal?" the offside call or non-call can be reviewed. I certainly don't think challenges while the ball is in play is the way to go, but if the technology is only used retrospectively when the ball is dead, it actually helps the game flow more. The only exception should be if the video ref spots some violent conduct that the ref doesn't he can speak to the ref and the ref can decide to play on or stop the game immediately.
I am no fan of the idea of video technology as I don't think football is the right game for it, but that is the point of a trial. It should only be used when the game naturally stops....which as I said before means that it can overturn a penalty given, but may be useless for a penalty not given (as the game may very well have moved on if the ball hasn't gone out of play). I can see a situation where players pull up and argue with the ref whilst the other team carry on so as to give credence to their position...followed by moaning that they had scored while a point of order was discussed. Managers should not be involved as it would soon be used to disrupt play for tactical reasons. Whilst there will be a few clear cut miscarriages of justice set right, there will be far more cases where there is no clear answer and fans will still be discussing it till the cows come home. Have you seen how long some cricket decisions take? It will be valuable only in very limited situations and should be solely at the discretion of the ref....he must remain the man in charge. I can see this increasing the arguments on the field, not decreasing it. Have to wait and see.
Offside decisions could be dealt with quite well, actually, with GPS vests for all players plus an accelerometer in the match ball. Vin
Sorry to be pedantic but as I'm arguing that details matter I'm bound to come off that way. How about if there's an incident and the ball stays live for five minutes? Do they go back and look? Who decides whether an incident is important enough to be reviewed? Free kick a yard outside the penalty area? Two yards? Twenty? Does a dubious handball three minutes before your team score a goal really warrant going back? Details will derail this, IMO. Vin
So it looks like there will be at least two video refs working together. Personally I think when this eventually comes in, we will be wondering why it didn't happen sooner. As long as it remains in the control of the referee. The only concern for me is for referees to lose self confidence and over-review. I therefore think it's incredibly important that respect for the ref becomes of upmost importance and not treated so wishy washy like it is today. With the ability to review a decision there will be no excuse for players to surround an official. The captains rule should be adhered to and any over eager appeals should be carded.
Reviews generally work well with cricket because it is a game with frequent stops (which football isn't), though I think the ultra-slo mo can give misleading results with low catches due to distortion. However, it can be seen how Umpires have become too dependent and sometimes ask for unnecessary referrals...especially for run outs and foot faults.
Seems like the video officials can review incidents as they come up so there shouldn't be any need to pull the game back for a dubious handball three minutes after the fact. I would think they'll put in a time limit on decisions. If it takes more than 30 seconds to review the footage and pick out a clear error (I've plucked that 30 seconds figure out of the air, it could be whatever length of time is deemed appropriate) then it's not a clear enough mistake/oversight.
Think that's why multiple video refs make sense, so one can quickly review an incident whilst another keeps up with the live action. Better start brushing up on my video editing skills, could be some work on the horizon.
Why aren't the league teams pissed off with being guinea pigs? As the EPL are making the most fuss and have the best facilities, why aren't they the ones being inconvenienced and distracted.
At the end of the day, we are still going to be at the mercy of how any incident is interpreted, by individuals, whether they are holding the whistle or watching a tv replay. Will the people reviewing the video all be qualified referees? If so at what level will they have officiated? If they have only officiated at a level below that of the Premier League, how comfortable will they be in overriding a decision of a referee that is rated better than them? (If it does role out to all levels in the future). So much to consider.
Fully support this - but agreed its all the detail. Football, technology speaking, has historically been so far behind so many other world-wide sports its almost laughable. How many years did it take to get them to put microphones on referees after first being introduced in Rugby Union? The ref's need a tool to clamp down on the cheats as well as the goal decisions (penalties/off-sides/red cards etc) and if the game is serious about being professional (and the definition means more than just getting paid) it needs to embrace the video technology to rectify or clarify other incidents - it needs to be used to cite incidents of unprofessional conduct and start to fine players and clubs. I hate the fact there are so many cheats in football and yet, by not punishing them, they add legitimacy to their actions... ... phew - that was a good rant - glad to get that off my chest!!!
