Video technology to be discussed!
- Thread starter canary-dave
- 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
-
It's funny I feel like there have been fewer controversies this year with really terrible decisions meriting widespread calls for video refereeing. The sceptic in me wonders whether that might have something to do with recent events at the top of the footballing pyramid... if you cut out the cancer...
I think the goalline technology has been excellent, and I can see the benefits of video refereeing in lots of ways. However, I am also a rugby fan and the video refereeing was excellent at first, but the latest world cup was marred by multiple instances of the referee unnecessarily going to the video ref and it put massive delays and interruptions on an already stilted game.
If video refereeing is brought in, it will help perceived "fairness" (although it doesn't stop the video referee's decision being criticised...) but it needs to be very carefully thought through to ensure that it is not heavy touch before making any rash decision which completely changes the game.
I think the goalline technology has been excellent, and I can see the benefits of video refereeing in lots of ways. However, I am also a rugby fan and the video refereeing was excellent at first, but the latest world cup was marred by multiple instances of the referee unnecessarily going to the video ref and it put massive delays and interruptions on an already stilted game.
If video refereeing is brought in, it will help perceived "fairness" (although it doesn't stop the video referee's decision being criticised...) but it needs to be very carefully thought through to ensure that it is not heavy touch before making any rash decision which completely changes the game.
I've been wanting this for years now and I'm sure one of the reasons it was blocked was the 'dinosaur' Blatter at the top of the tree.
Used correctly, I'm sure it would benefit the game immensely (Bournemouth wouldn't have had their penalty on Saturday for starters!!), but as you say Rob it spoilt the flow of some of the matches in the RWC, so it's use should be limited.
Perhaps I'm a dinosaur but I really, really do not want this. IMO it will completely sterilise the bootiful game and it will be a sad day when it is implemented. WTF is everyone going to debate in the pub on a Sunday lunchtime when everything is so black and white? Decisions really do even themselves out over the course of a season despite what you may think, if it ain't broke (which I don't think it is), don't fix it !
P.S. Welcome back Dave and Merry Crimbo to you and yours
P.S. Welcome back Dave and Merry Crimbo to you and yours
I think I ,like the idea of video assistance on penalty incidents that are questionable, but not red cards or fouls. Not sure about sin bins, 4th substitutes or emergency substitutes while injured players are treated though. Even though this is the season of goodwill, I think that might be taking things a bit too far. Sin bins possibly, but should they be before, after, or instead of, giving a yellow card?
I can see how temporary subs while injured players get treated could be a good thing, no one likes waiting for 3 - 5 minutes or more for the game to resume. But not sure I'm keen on the idea tbh.
Video replays on penalty decisions or incidents I like, because conceding a penalty that wasn't a penalty could mean the difference of staying up or not. I know it provides a talking point, but not at the cost of us losing points.
Video replays on penalty decisions or incidents I like, because conceding a penalty that wasn't a penalty could mean the difference of staying up or not. I know it provides a talking point, but not at the cost of us losing points.
Blatter and Plattini were the most out spoken critics of changes to the game it make sense that now they're out of the picture this gets brought up. I have been a fairly outspoken proponent of video technology and it was the first thing I wanted to change after they got the boot.
The controversial part of me would question why that pair would have been so actively holding back innovations that would prevent match fixing?
The controversial part of me would question why that pair would have been so actively holding back innovations that would prevent match fixing?
I don't agree either, however I'm massively in favour of trialing new ideas to see if they work. Other sports such as rugby frequently trial new rules in preseason and generally don't take too many forward but attest people are actively encouraged to innovate. Football feels like it's been decided that it's just not allowed to change again. It feels fitting that in the week Jimmy Hill dies were starting to look at making changes to improve things.
I agree with video technology, but I'd like it to be similar to that used in American football where the ref goes to a sideline monitor for a replay to decide if the decision should be changed.
Also, welcome back from me as well, Dave - it hasn't been the same without you!
Also, welcome back from me as well, Dave - it hasn't been the same without you!
Genuine question, and not picking selected highlights for scrutiny (I don't watch of follow rugby in an form) - how long are these massive delays?
Sorry my post was misleading. The delays individually probably aren't that long. I doubt anything like a minute, unless it's a really difficult decision - no different to the TMO in cricket. The trouble was there were a couple of matches where it went to the TMO more than just a handful of times and together it lengthened the match noticeably.
But the real issue is that it got to the stage where every time a try happened, the ref went to the TMO as if they were "just checking", even though it was obvious the try was fine. And then the rule is that the ref can go back (I think) up to two phases to check. That's frustrating because if there's a hint of a forward pass, who cares, but also two phases (or however far back they can go) can be as much as a minute in time if one team has kept the ball for ages. That doesn't sound like long, but in sporting terms a minute is ages - imagine if a video referee could go back a minute in football before a goal! That could take you a couple of goal kicks back, build ups to corners. It's very frustrating - I just wanted to see clear tries given and if they needed to check with the video ref that the ball was grounded properly, fine, but only when there is a crowd of bodies.
Yeah, I can see how the ref's might be tempted to pass the responsibility. I have the solution - if they do not want a responsible role in the game, pay them far less
Looks like it MAY be trialled in next season's Scottish Cup - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/35265870
I heard this discussed on the wireless yesterday and one idea that has been put out is similar to the tennis where players have a number of challenges. Given to a manager, and perhaps only allowed for:
Penalty Decisions
Red Card Decisions
Off the ball incidents (e.g. violent intent)
then perhaps the game would still flow. There are what, 20 odd cameras at any game and if the 4th official has a judiciary role in reviewing the video evidence, then I could see it working. It works in cricket and adds to the enjoyment on the game, also in Rugby...why is football so hallowed?
Penalty Decisions
Red Card Decisions
Off the ball incidents (e.g. violent intent)
then perhaps the game would still flow. There are what, 20 odd cameras at any game and if the 4th official has a judiciary role in reviewing the video evidence, then I could see it working. It works in cricket and adds to the enjoyment on the game, also in Rugby...why is football so hallowed?