In a couple of threads elsewhere over the past month there has been some debate about referees' decisions. No need to highlight which but you know the debates you've heard a hundred times: hand-to-ball or ball-to-hand? Did he dive or was he tripped? etc, etc. That led me to thinking today (never a good thing) and it made me wonder if the video reviews some people call for could work. You see, in tennis, the calls are whether the ball was in or out. Hawkeye is now the yes/no, clear-cut arbiter of that. In cricket, was it LBW? Again, hawkeye andwers with a clear yes/no. For run outs, the decision is simple, was the bat grounded when the bails started to move? In Rugby, did the player have the ball in hand, was he in play and was the ball touched down in the right area? All of them are pretty much yes/no. However, in footy, there's a great deal more debate about decisions. WBA complained abou the penalty given against them in the first game of the season against us. They cited it as a clearly wrong decision. When it was on MOTD, I recall the pundits being 2:1 in thinking it was a penalty. But without going into the specifics of that incident, there was clearly disagreement. So I'm left thinking that video review during a game can't work in the way it does for Tennis/Cricket/Rugby. I'm not trying to argue against it but I'm genuinely interested in how the supporters of it (some on here) would see it working given the room for debate on many decisions (most likely the majority of ones that would go to review). I'll state my slant on this as I probably sound anti, but my argument is not with the technology, it's a couple of principles. 1. Sunday morning league players should be playing the same game as professionals and this would break it (I disapproved for tennis, cricket and rugby on the same grounds). 2. Players and teams should act their age and accept that mistakes are made in life and you have to move on. So how do the supporters see it working practically? Have there been any serious discussions or proposals of how it would work? I'm ready to have my mind changed on the practicalities even if I disagree on the principles. Could it work? Vin
Sure it could work. Give each team one opportunity to challenge the referee per match, have the replay watched by the fourth official and they either uphold or overrule the referee's decision, within 30 seconds you have a decision. Practical and workable, the fact that many decisions are still contentious even with the benefit of replays notwithstanding of course. Will it ever happen? Unlikely.
They spend plenty of time reviewing controversial decisions on MOTD, and even with the ability to pause the video and look at it from a bunch of different angles, they still find themselves not coming to an agreement a lot of the time.
Indeed, and unless it is a clear mistake you'd be very unlikely to get the decision overruled. As it should be.
I'd have to be convinced that it can be done fairly speedily as well. We don't want games running too late.
You can get multiple angles to review on a television in a matter of seconds. No reason they couldn't have already begun to review it by the time the referee is asked to refer it. It would take less time than the average substitution.
I think as Vin says the only decisions that could be reviewed are those that are completely objective ones, and not subject to someone's opinion. So deliberate handball or fouls in the area would be no-no's, but offside decisions, or ball over the bye-line for a corner/goalkick, plus who touched it last etc. would be easy to review. I like PTF's idea of each side having a limited number of reviews available as well.
I think they should be allowed to refer anything, but the video official would have to see something that convinced them the referee was wrong, like with the cricket referrals. They don't overrule things based on probability, unless there is clear evidence a mistake has been made the on-field decision stands. That's why it's important to restrict the number of challenges each team is allowed. If they only have one, as I suggest, they will not want to waste it on something unless they are absolutely sure. This would probably result in many matches where no reviews are used at all.
I would say that the referee should review it as the ultimate authority. I would add that whilst there are countless examples of inconclusive replays there are an equal amount of conclusive ones. Logically, only the latter would be overruled and I believe this could only improve the game.
Ha, you are definitely fishing for replies on this one Vin because a lot of people have very polarised views. I'll bite I could definitely imagine GLT being extended to make decisions on all in/out of play judgements, all it would need is more cameras, no more difficult technology wise. You could even decide which player touched it last. Offsides too, a computer could (probably) decide whether a player is in an offside position although the interfering bit would still need a human to decide. So I can see all of that in the next 10 years. All of those things are black and white decisions based on the laws. A computer can't make a decision on a foul/handball etc, because those things need interpretation. Even humans can't agree on them, like Joe said, so rugby style video reviews can't work for that. Take the Everton handball for example, it would be impossible to overrule the ref's decision, whether he gave it or not, because it's a deliberate/accidental decision. I agree with both your points as well Vin, or to put it another way, players/managers should accept that there are 23 people on the pitch and it wasn't the only neutral one out of the lot that influenced the outcome of the game. Obviously it's a lot easier to blame them though, particularly when they can't answer back.
It would also take some stress away from the refs, I can think of no other sport where players harass the ref like little little children. 3 calls the same in tennis and cricket, it has added excitement to other sports so can not see why it should not be the same with football
More cameras would be prohibitively expensive, I think. There's no need for it when a human watching a video can tell you with near certainty whose throw-in it is. The goal-line is different, there can be lots of players in the way or the ball can bounce quickly down off the crossbar for example, that wouldn't happen with the touchline. Rugby TMOs do actually rule on judgement calls, such as forward pass or obstruction. But they communicate with the referee and find out his thought process, then they only overrule if it's clear the judgement was flawed. There's no practical reason this can't work in football as well. Absolutely, the referee would be able to say "if you think I'm wrong, use your review". It would shut them up pretty quickly I imagine.
I was asking not to elicit a reaction but to hear the practicalities. Genuinely. I hadn't really considered the other decisions that are yes/no, though I would consider the question of in/out of play as not being worth the effort (I know it may occasionally matter but there must be a line drawn somewhere - pun not intended). Gary Lineker has called for something that COULD make it easier, namely for handball to be an absolute offence. If your hand makes contact with the ball it's handball, nothing more to be said. Vin
That's an interesting idea but it would just result in players aiming for hands to get penalties and I think that would have an enormously detrimental effect on the game.
It would work as long as there was some bias programmed into the software. The favouritism shown towards the bigger clubs will have to be maintained . Can't wait to hear the Northam's first chant of "The video review system's a ****er"
I agree, and there are simple solutions to that aspect of the game but no-one seems to want to introduce them for some reason. If defenders knew that backchat would move a free kick ten yards closer to the goal they's stop arguing. Vin
I think it's far more difficult to aim for someone's hand than it is to just get a good ball into the box. I'm with Gary on this.
It may be difficult but that wouldn't put people off trying. It also brings up a number of other difficult scenarios. For example if you have a free-kick where the wall is inside the box, aiming for their groins (covered by their hands) would be a viable strategy; it's a lot easier to hit hands if there are a whole row of them and they aren't moving. There's also still the difficulty in judging whether the ball has actually hit the hand in many cases. You'd see more 'false positives' if Lineker's suggestion were adopted.
I would be against its introduction. The problem is that the laws of the game are open to interpretation, and I think a referee might feel undermined if he makes a decision, only for it to be overruled. If this happens a couple of times, players will start to feel that the referee is useless and could potentially be used against them. My other worry is how long it will take to review, and if a team can challenge a decision, when can they do this. Take our game against Wigan last season, where we countered from their corner, took it up the other end and scored. If Wigan felt there was a pull on a shirt by a Saints player from the corner which would result in a penalty, can the review it immediately (i.e. with the ball still in play), or must the ball be dead? If dead, and it should have been a penalty, you have to potentially rule out Saints goal. If you can appeal whilst the ball is in play, how many angles must the incident be looked at from to get a good idea of what has happened, and how long this takes can change the effectiveness of being able to appeal anytime (it took only seconds for Saints to take it up the other end and score).
