Briefly switched on to the England v Netherlands Hockey World Cup Semi Final yesterday. I noticed that they had a video referral system in place where the captain could question a decision and the decision went to a TV referee who could look at different angles. It worked very well.
I would argue that one of the arguments to not having this in football is because you can go 5 mins without a stoppage. This is similar to hockey, and as I said, it worked!
The referee also had a microphone, every word could be heard. This allowed decisions to be much more clearly explained and understood.
I thought it was worth posting as it shows just another sport moving on with the times that I didn't realise had.
We've had two days of football in this tournament and already it is being plagued by bad decisions.
When will this sport adapt?...
4
Comments
Each manager having one referral during the game.
I don't like the idea myself.
Some might argue that the game has survived for well over 100 years without video replays and such, but as there was no such technology around, it's a pointless argument.
Personally, I'm all for any change that improves the game...............
Edit: this is in support of replays and referals, just because you change the system slightly at the top does not create an imbalance down the bottom
I think it is ridiculous that the most popular and biggest sport in the world, still has games being decided by human error, this is not about replacing Referee's it is about assisting them.
If the TV companies can get a clear cut replay on screen for us viewing public within 30 seconds, then really no excuse for in the stadium, they could even make it part of the show for fans inside the stadium by showing it on the big screen.
Another great example where an appeal system could've been used so far was the Brazil penalty in the first game.
Leave the beautiful game alone. Cheats will still cheat and refs will still make bad or mistaken decisions and in the vast majority of matches players will get on and play the game.
Just my opinion.
People say that video referrals will slow the game down but how long does it take for the Referee to tell everyone to fuck off when they surround him demanding that he change his mind... You've seen it take ages sometimes and if you introduce the referral system you can instantly have a rule saying that if players surround the ref (Apart from the Captain who's job it is to appeal) they get an instant yellow card regardless
In cricket the umpires now call for replays of run outs when the batsman is virtually past the stumps because they are shit scared of making an error.
A rugby game between Bath and Worcester with no serious injuries, had eighteen and a half minutes added on a few weeks back, it took six minutes for the video ref to make up his mind over whether one incident was a sin bin offence.
Even with replays too many decisions are a matter of opinion, not fact. Two people see the same incident, one thinks it's a pen, the other doesn't.
Leave it be, warts and all.
for cricket it's more because the ball is thrown at such a pace that even when a player looks like they're in they could still be out (bat not planted on the ground when bails are removed).
Does anyone really care if they have to stay in a ground 6 minutes longer? It also allows the players to take on water/take instructions from the manager. I've yet to see compelling arguements against referals that doesn't include "i want to go home a bit earlier to do the hoovering my missus wanted me to do this morning"
Six minutes that means you miss the last train home? I know that can happen now, but it would be more frequent - and I mentioned eighteen minutes, by the way KA...
The big argument all you people who want to turn the game on its head use is about getting it 100% right, what's the point in another bloke looking at a replay if when he tells the ref he thinks he got it wrong, the ref disagrees and the original decision stands, as you suggest? What's the point in referring it at all if the ref already has his opinion?
No sorry mate, nothing to convince me there.
As i said, there can be a situation where the batsman does not have his feet grounded behind the line and his batted ungrounded when it would look to the naked eye to probably be safe. It happens a lot more than you would think, it's simply a precautionary measure. Plus, it's not a referral by the team, it's by the umpire and was bought in a lot longer before team referals and doesn't count towards any team's referrals. There is no other measure bought in before hand in football that a referee would need constant reassurances about like run outs. Only having 1 or 2 referrals each side per game to contest a decision would be used very sparingly, like it is in cricket.
It's not turning the game on it's head, it's literally giving the referee's the technology that's already there, and is already displayed on big screens in every premier league stadium.
I think claiming that the referral system would mean that people would miss trains is clutching a straws frankly. This is the way that sport is going and football will eventually succum to the changes. You better start swimmin...
The opening Brazil game would have been utterly different, and far better, had technology spotted the cheating dive in the 70th minute. Football would have won in that case, and many others - hand of god anyone? Geoff Hurst's 'goal'. Teams (and countries) have wallowed for years after the injustice of events such as these. This is not good for the game and in this day and age, totally unnecessary.
An added bonus with referral systems is that players would be far less likely to dive/claim headbutts etc if they knew their actions would be reviewed.