Immediate confirmation of a goal if accurate enough is the only thing that fits in with a game like soccer. I do wonder, however, how often this is an issue in one season. Does it warrant the cost? Although glad the lino saw that Lambert's goal had crossed the line on Monday...how hard did he hit that!!!
But how far has the ball moved by the time they get back to the action. I believe there was one instance where the BBC missed a goal.
You do get rather concerned over how far the ball has travelled after a particular event has happened. As it stands, the referee has always had the authority to whistle the game to a stop at any point he chooses, whether 0.5 second or 50 seconds has passed. If he does this, it doesn't matter whether the ball has gone into the net up the other end or not. The fact is, when the referee brings the game back to a point of restart, any progress of the game that had previously proceeded beyond that point was null and void. Hopefully I've explained that bit clearly. Now, you may say that's unfair on the team that could have gone up the other end and scored. But isn't that unfair on the team that's missed out on the correct decision if the game was not brought back..? Football is a game based on speed and skill, but that shouldn't give it the excuse of knowingly being able to be played outside of the implementation of its own rules. The other day against Pompey, Dean Hammond argued that Sharp's goal was legal. The referee consulted with the lino and overruled him, as I think he knew it was a goal too. Video technology could have confirmed that in seconds. Instead, we had players from Portsmouth protesting that it was offside. Imagine if they'd had no argument..? The game could have progressed more speedily. That's actually a bad example, because the Pompey players' protest was lukewarm, but we have seen players crowd a referee in the past, bringing the game to an absolute halt. With a signal from the video, that would all be gone, and good job too. The correct decision is what's important, not what happens afterwards.
I still think that players will complain to disrupt play if the opposition have an advantage. Yes, the ref can call back play and sometimes they get it right and sometimes wrong, but that is part of the game. What is being suggested is that teams can appeal...do you really think that won't be used strategically? At the moment, managers go berserk on the side lines....often they are wrong...do you want them to have the power to stop play and stop start the game. Replays are often inconclusive. The danger is that we will throw out the baby with the bathwater. Ruin the game because imperfection is unacceptable.
Replays are not often inconclusive. In fact they are rarely inconclusive. Now you could point to the fact that rarely is not never. But then again, the technology is not being implemented, except by the TV company, and only in a way that suits them for overall pictures, not for the good of the game. As for using the imperfection strategically, do they not do it already..? It's a done argument, Fran. It's only a matter of when the technology is implemented, not if. They might as well get it over and done with, because the technology has better eyes than the officials. Goodness knows we've expected a general level of performance out of them each week that has been simply unobtainable without help. Video technology will help the officials achieve that.
