Done my bit further up the thread. What I highlighted just epitomises what I would hate about technology being introduced for anything other than goal line.
There's no point ART, you and Kentaddick have already made you minds up that the flowing nature of football will not be interrupted by interruptions, me and SHG have made our minds up that it will and that we like a game that's more or less the same at all levels, you are happy for top level football to be different from that in the leagues below. You are not going to change your minds and neither are we.
You cannot lose, either it stays as it is, and you carry on complaining about wrong decisions costing this that and the other. Or it changes, and whether it works or not, it will stay changed, because that's the way things are now, once a decision is made it is never reversed because people in charge NEVER have the bottle to say I got it wrong.
I point to 150 years of the game, you point to a dozen mistakes.. ;-)
(That's a little joke by the way, lest it be misinterpreted)
In the spirit of your little joke, and to confound your 150 years of an unchanged game, in your football world there would be;
no corners no substitutes no limit to the height of the goals no goalkeepers. or goalkeepers who can catch the ball anywhere on the pitch no referees or umpires one handed throw ins no penalty areas no offsides no red or yellow cards no penalty shoot outs
You may be entrenched, but weren't you in favour of goal line technology after Lampard's goal against Germany? Has that technology ruined the flow of your 150 year old game (or in fact it's much modernised and developed successor)?
Already in this world cup we have wasted more time waiting for feigned injuries to clear up - especially in the disgraceful cases of the Ivory Coast actors - than would ever be spent sorting out the penalty decisions!
Absolutely take your point about changes - to all levels of the game.
I have always been in favour of goal line technology, because it is a FACT, not opinion. It happens instantly as you well know. It is practical to have that technology at all levels of the pro game, not the amateur (the money washing around the Premier league could easily pay for it to be installed and maintained down to conference south and north level without them even noticing.)
Acting can be dealt with, at all levels, without video replays.
I am also in favour of no-one talking to the ref other than the player concerned and the captain, no swearing at all at the officials, a separate timekeeper, and penalties for shirt pulling at corners EVERY time, and no red cards for the last man where a penalty is given. I am not anti-change, I just don't think that in a flowing game video replays will be practical - I have time and again given my reasons on thread after thread, but the pro-brigade seem to ignore that (a bit like the "Yes" Jocks, when asked where's the money coming from). I absolutely guarantee within five games of it being introduced, you will be slagging the video ref for getting it wrong, because you didn't think it was a penalty/red card and he did. The one appeal argument, again, within five games Hansen and the like will be "Well, if you can have one appeal, why not four, five or six, it's ridiculous that an error as glaring as that is allowed to pass by just because the captain got an appeal wrong half an hour ago, when we have the technology to stamp that out". Or "Well if we can use video replays for penalties and red cards, why not offsides/free kicks/throw ins...". And even if you personally don't agree with that, the next generation will...
It's a can of worms I really don't want to see opened.
Absolutely take your point about changes - to all levels of the game.
I have always been in favour of goal line technology, because it is a FACT, not opinion. It happens instantly as you well know. It is practical to have that technology at all levels of the pro game, not the amateur (the money washing around the Premier league could easily pay for it to be installed and maintained down to conference south and north level without them even noticing.)
Acting can be dealt with, at all levels, without video replays.
I am also in favour of no-one talking to the ref other than the player concerned and the captain, no swearing at all at the officials, a separate timekeeper, and penalties for shirt pulling at corners EVERY time, and no red cards for the last man where a penalty is given. I am not anti-change, I just don't think that in a flowing game video replays will be practical - I have time and again given my reasons on thread after thread, but the pro-brigade seem to ignore that (a bit like the "Yes" Jocks, when asked where's the money coming from). I absolutely guarantee within five games of it being introduced, you will be slagging the video ref for getting it wrong, because you didn't think it was a penalty/red card and he did. The one appeal argument, again, within five games Hansen and the like will be "Well, if you can have one appeal, why not four, five or six, it's ridiculous that an error as glaring as that is allowed to pass by just because the captain got an appeal wrong half an hour ago, when we have the technology to stamp that out". Or "Well if we can use video replays for penalties and red cards, why not offsides/free kicks/throw ins...". And even if you personally don't agree with that, the next generation will...
It's a can of worms I really don't want to see opened.
I'd like to see as much technology as possible introduced to decide on matters of fact, ie whether the ball is in/out, offside decision, where a foul took place (if needed for penalty/free), handball. As long as these things can be done automatically and don't need to refer to a bloke with videos, I'm all for them. I know the technology is probably not available to cover all these scenarios at the moment, but if it develops, I'd like to see it used.
Then, as more decisions of fact are automated, it allows the referees and linesmen to focus more on the decisions of opinion, ie whether it's a foul or a dive.
I'm not in favour of using video replays during a match. But I might support allowing referees view their decisions after a match and potentially apply retrospective punishment for cheats or fouls.
In the spirit of your little joke, and to confound your 150 years of an unchanged game, in your football world there would be;
no corners no substitutes no limit to the height of the goals no goalkeepers. or goalkeepers who can catch the ball anywhere on the pitch no referees or umpires one handed throw ins no penalty areas no offsides no red or yellow cards no penalty shoot outs
and add to that list that players would be allowed to pick up the ball and run with it (Blackheath FC lost the argument on that one!).
Rules may change of course, and I'm not against the principle of referral to a video referee - but that should be the referee's decision (as in rugby) and not based on an appeal by a manager.
I'd like to see as much technology as possible introduced to decide on matters of fact, ie whether the ball is in/out, offside decision, where a foul took place (if needed for penalty/free), handball. As long as these things can be done automatically and don't need to refer to a bloke with videos, I'm all for them. I know the technology is probably not available to cover all these scenarios at the moment, but if it develops, I'd like to see it used. Then, as more decisions of fact are automated, it allows the referees and linesmen to focus more on the decisions of opinion, ie whether it's a foul or a dive.
I'm not in favour of using video replays during a match. But I might support allowing referees view their decisions after a match and potentially apply retrospective punishment for cheats or fouls.
Don't know if that makes me a Luddite.
The referee is at ground level. Often many yards from the play. Possibly with players in his site lines. He will never get everything right or even see everything, nor would I want or expect him to. Large numbers do decisions are very subjective. You win some you lose some. I don't think refs are cheats and am perfectly happy for them to get it wrong. It's integral to how football has evolved and IMHO is very much part of what makes football the great spectacle it has become. Let's leave it be.
Absolutely take your point about changes - to all levels of the game.
I have always been in favour of goal line technology, because it is a FACT, not opinion. It happens instantly as you well know. It is practical to have that technology at all levels of the pro game, not the amateur (the money washing around the Premier league could easily pay for it to be installed and maintained down to conference south and north level without them even noticing.)
Acting can be dealt with, at all levels, without video replays.
I am also in favour of no-one talking to the ref other than the player concerned and the captain, no swearing at all at the officials, a separate timekeeper, and penalties for shirt pulling at corners EVERY time, and no red cards for the last man where a penalty is given. I am not anti-change, I just don't think that in a flowing game video replays will be practical - I have time and again given my reasons on thread after thread, but the pro-brigade seem to ignore that (a bit like the "Yes" Jocks, when asked where's the money coming from). I absolutely guarantee within five games of it being introduced, you will be slagging the video ref for getting it wrong, because you didn't think it was a penalty/red card and he did. The one appeal argument, again, within five games Hansen and the like will be "Well, if you can have one appeal, why not four, five or six, it's ridiculous that an error as glaring as that is allowed to pass by just because the captain got an appeal wrong half an hour ago, when we have the technology to stamp that out". Or "Well if we can use video replays for penalties and red cards, why not offsides/free kicks/throw ins...". And even if you personally don't agree with that, the next generation will...
It's a can of worms I really don't want to see opened.
Have you been reading my mind ? Great post.
Great, if you like unrealistic hyperbole ;-)
So some technology is OK even when it only happens at the top end of the game. This goes against your previous stance doesn't it?
Acting hasn't been dealt with, has it? It's a massive game-spoiler.
The dive for the penalty in the Croatian game would have been appealed. 2 minutes later the penalty would not have been given - not by 'me' or 'you' - but by a match official applying the laws of the game. Objective not subjective. Fred would get a card and the game would have continued quicker than it actually did - how much time did the ref spend chasing away the crowd of Croation players in his face? Decision would have already have been made - and in this case it would have been the RIGHT decision, the FAIR decision, the BEST decision for the game/spirit and future of football. And you can be sure that once one or 2 divers have gone for a penalty but ended up with a card, possibly missing a semi final etc, there would be precious little repetition of this cheating in future tournaments.
PS. No one is suggesting reviews for throw ins. Nor is anyone suggesting six appeals. Ruins your argument saying that it might lead to other things. As ludicrous as saying weed is sure to lead to crack addiction.
Make no mistake, the introduction of digital technology in sport is not chiefly concerned with getting the decision right, it's about advertising potential. Look at cricket where the whole flashing "out" "not out" business has nothing to do with the game. It's about making each and every 'punter' stare at the Natwest logo for 30 seconds. I know it's gonna happen sometime, but I dread the day when we are forced to watch big screens proclaiming "It's a BARCLAYCARD Goal!!!!", "SKY BET odds that it's a free kick are...", "There's NO PENALTY from HMRC if you get your tax return in early", "SPEEDO say he dived". Let's keep this shit out of football for as long as we can. There's nothing at all wrong with having the odd wrong decision here and there, ultimately it makes the game a bit more interesting. And as Algarve says lots of decisions in football are about opinion rather than fact any way. If you want to watch a completely sanitised version of the game with all the fun sucked out of it, try FIFA 2014 or some other pixelated pony: every decision is spot on and it's as boring as hell.
As for the debate about whether teams can have one appeal, two appeals, thirty-three and a third appeals or whatever. This just gives away the lie about about the superiority of video technology. If it really would lead to a digital-dreamland, there'd be no question about the number of appeals; every decision should be made in this way not just a handful of them.
There's only one good thing that will come of the introduction of video technology and that is that it will shut up the all too vociferous pro-technology whinge brigade.
Make no mistake, the introduction of digital technology in sport is not chiefly concerned with getting the decision right, it's about advertising potential. Look at cricket where the whole flashing "out" "not out" business has nothing to do with the game. It's about making each and every 'punter' stare at the Natwest logo for 30 seconds. I know it's gonna happen sometime, but I dread the day when we are forced to watch big screens proclaiming "It's a BARCLAYCARD Goal!!!!", "SKY BET odds that it's a free kick are...", "There's NO PENALTY from HMRC if you get your tax return in early", "SPEEDO say he dived". Let's keep this shit out of football for as long as we can. There's nothing at all wrong with having the odd wrong decision here and there, ultimately it makes the game a bit more interesting. And as Algarve says lots of decisions in football are about opinion rather than fact any way. If you want to watch a completely sanitised version of the game with all the fun sucked out of it, try FIFA 2014 or some other pixelated pony: every decision is spot on and it's as boring as hell.
As for the debate about whether teams can have one appeal, two appeals, thirty-three and a third appeals or whatever. This just gives away the lie about about the superiority of video technology. If it really would lead to a digital-dreamland, there'd be no question about the number of appeals; every decision should be made in this way not just a handful of them.
There's only one good thing that will come of the introduction of video technology and that is that it will shut up the all too vociferous pro-technology whinge brigade.
A vivid nightmare vision of the future. It couldn't happen could it ?
One appeal per half, carried over if correct, is not going to change the game we love and turn it into an Americanised technology-orientated game.
But there are some difficulties:
Offside,for example, is a difficult one. It should only be up to the referee to decide if a player is interfering with play, and what about the goal scored after the flag has gone up where the whole defending team plays to the flag and stops.
Diving is subjective as is handball: what's deliberate and what isn't.
I can see penalty appeals adding great tension and atmosphere to the game, whether it's by the attacking or defending team. But what about the prospect of an appeal after a penalty is saved because the keeper moved before the ball is kicked.
There are a number of difficult scenarios but I am in favour of a limited appeals system but only if it's a possible goal, goal prevention or penalty incident.
so how long would a video referral take? once they've looked at it and then debated it, that's more time added onto the current customary stoppage time per half, i can see at the end of 90 minutes 'the fourth official has indicated 15mins of added time'........ and what about managers using their allocated referrals to ruin the flow of a game, perhaps the opposition is on top and a particular incident that doesn't warrant a referral is 'referred' in a deliberate act of gamesmanship...this would probably need managing too?
Absolutely take your point about changes - to all levels of the game.
I have always been in favour of goal line technology, because it is a FACT, not opinion. It happens instantly as you well know. It is practical to have that technology at all levels of the pro game, not the amateur (the money washing around the Premier league could easily pay for it to be installed and maintained down to conference south and north level without them even noticing.)
Acting can be dealt with, at all levels, without video replays.
I am also in favour of no-one talking to the ref other than the player concerned and the captain, no swearing at all at the officials, a separate timekeeper, and penalties for shirt pulling at corners EVERY time, and no red cards for the last man where a penalty is given. I am not anti-change, I just don't think that in a flowing game video replays will be practical - I have time and again given my reasons on thread after thread, but the pro-brigade seem to ignore that (a bit like the "Yes" Jocks, when asked where's the money coming from). I absolutely guarantee within five games of it being introduced, you will be slagging the video ref for getting it wrong, because you didn't think it was a penalty/red card and he did. The one appeal argument, again, within five games Hansen and the like will be "Well, if you can have one appeal, why not four, five or six, it's ridiculous that an error as glaring as that is allowed to pass by just because the captain got an appeal wrong half an hour ago, when we have the technology to stamp that out". Or "Well if we can use video replays for penalties and red cards, why not offsides/free kicks/throw ins...". And even if you personally don't agree with that, the next generation will...
It's a can of worms I really don't want to see opened.
Have you been reading my mind ? Great post.
Great, if you like unrealistic hyperbole ;-)
So some technology is OK even when it only happens at the top end of the game. This goes against your previous stance doesn't it?
Acting hasn't been dealt with, has it? It's a massive game-spoiler.
The dive for the penalty in the Croatian game would have been appealed. 2 minutes later the penalty would not have been given - not by 'me' or 'you' - but by a match official applying the laws of the game. Objective not subjective. Fred would get a card and the game would have continued quicker than it actually did - how much time did the ref spend chasing away the crowd of Croation players in his face? Decision would have already have been made - and in this case it would have been the RIGHT decision, the FAIR decision, the BEST decision for the game/spirit and future of football. And you can be sure that once one or 2 divers have gone for a penalty but ended up with a card, possibly missing a semi final etc, there would be precious little repetition of this cheating in future tournaments.
PS. No one is suggesting reviews for throw ins. Nor is anyone suggesting six appeals. Ruins your argument saying that it might lead to other things. As ludicrous as saying weed is sure to lead to crack addiction.
I accept that you are never ever going to change your mind on this ART - but do me the courtesy of reading what I have written, rather than what you want me to have written so you can knock it back please.
I accept that goal line technology when applied to all levels of the professional game is a good thing. The top division is a start, but not enough. I repeat - because it is a matter of FACT not opinion.
Acting has not been dealt with - that'll be why I used the words "CAN BE DEALT WITH".
How do you know the video match official would have not given the penalty? How do you know he would not have decided that the ref got it spot on? Or have you never ever, seen an incident where the ref thinks one way, Manish Basin and you think the same, but the commentator and Leroy Rosenior and your mate Brian think different? Even after ten different replay angles? I would say on an average weekend of watching televised football that happens about twice every week. The diving and cheating can and should be dealt with in retrospect, punished severely whether or not the referee has made a (wrong) decision at the time (another change ASSISTED by video replays that I do approve of). And did you ever see Dermot Gallagher on Monday morning on SSN reviewing the weekends refereeing decisions? The number of times a season he didn't find a reason why his colleague had got it right you could count on one hand. The refs are very loyal and protective of each other ART - there but for the grace of god go they...
I wonder how the referees themselves view the introduction of video replays? Have you asked them?
You say no-one is suggesting reviews for throw ins, but a few posts above IA has done just that, albeit in a world where the referees make almost no decisions at all. Have you asked every other fan in the world whether they would want it extended to five or ten appeals, if it affected their team one week? It does not ruin my argument saying it could lead to other things, because you are not taking a blind bit of notice of what I have actually written in the first place, but that aside, you have already used the - we use it for goals, why not other things - line yourself. Why wouldn't others take a similar line with numbers of appeals/what video replays are used for? I say again, YOU might be happy to leave it at that, others will and are not happy to leave it at that.
Absolutely take your point about changes - to all levels of the game.
I have always been in favour of goal line technology, because it is a FACT, not opinion. It happens instantly as you well know. It is practical to have that technology at all levels of the pro game, not the amateur (the money washing around the Premier league could easily pay for it to be installed and maintained down to conference south and north level without them even noticing.)
Acting can be dealt with, at all levels, without video replays.
I am also in favour of no-one talking to the ref other than the player concerned and the captain, no swearing at all at the officials, a separate timekeeper, and penalties for shirt pulling at corners EVERY time, and no red cards for the last man where a penalty is given. I am not anti-change, I just don't think that in a flowing game video replays will be practical - I have time and again given my reasons on thread after thread, but the pro-brigade seem to ignore that (a bit like the "Yes" Jocks, when asked where's the money coming from). I absolutely guarantee within five games of it being introduced, you will be slagging the video ref for getting it wrong, because you didn't think it was a penalty/red card and he did. The one appeal argument, again, within five games Hansen and the like will be "Well, if you can have one appeal, why not four, five or six, it's ridiculous that an error as glaring as that is allowed to pass by just because the captain got an appeal wrong half an hour ago, when we have the technology to stamp that out". Or "Well if we can use video replays for penalties and red cards, why not offsides/free kicks/throw ins...". And even if you personally don't agree with that, the next generation will...
It's a can of worms I really don't want to see opened.
Have you been reading my mind ? Great post.
Great, if you like unrealistic hyperbole ;-)
So some technology is OK even when it only happens at the top end of the game. This goes against your previous stance doesn't it?
Acting hasn't been dealt with, has it? It's a massive game-spoiler.
The dive for the penalty in the Croatian game would have been appealed. 2 minutes later the penalty would not have been given - not by 'me' or 'you' - but by a match official applying the laws of the game. Objective not subjective. Fred would get a card and the game would have continued quicker than it actually did - how much time did the ref spend chasing away the crowd of Croation players in his face? Decision would have already have been made - and in this case it would have been the RIGHT decision, the FAIR decision, the BEST decision for the game/spirit and future of football. And you can be sure that once one or 2 divers have gone for a penalty but ended up with a card, possibly missing a semi final etc, there would be precious little repetition of this cheating in future tournaments.
PS. No one is suggesting reviews for throw ins. Nor is anyone suggesting six appeals. Ruins your argument saying that it might lead to other things. As ludicrous as saying weed is sure to lead to crack addiction.
I accept that you are never ever going to change your mind on this ART - but do me the courtesy of reading what I have written, rather than what you want me to have written so you can knock it back please.
You say no-one is suggesting reviews for throw ins, but a few posts above IA has done just that, albeit in a world where the referees make almost no decisions at all. Have you asked every other fan in the world whether they would want it extended to five or ten appeals, if it affected their team one week? It does not ruin my argument saying it could lead to other things, because you are not taking a blind bit of notice of what I have actually written in the first place, but that aside, you have already used the "we use it for goals, why not other things" line yourself. Why wouldn't others take a similar line with numbers of appeals/what video replays are used for? I say again, YOU might be happy to leave it at that, others will and are not happy to leave it at that.
I have not said that video replays should be used for throw ins. That's nothing like what I mentioned. I have suggested that 'goal line technology' could be used to buzz the referee to tell him/her than the ball has crossed the line, because that's a matter of fact not opinion.
Absolutely take your point about changes - to all levels of the game.
I have always been in favour of goal line technology, because it is a FACT, not opinion. It happens instantly as you well know. It is practical to have that technology at all levels of the pro game, not the amateur (the money washing around the Premier league could easily pay for it to be installed and maintained down to conference south and north level without them even noticing.)
Acting can be dealt with, at all levels, without video replays.
I am also in favour of no-one talking to the ref other than the player concerned and the captain, no swearing at all at the officials, a separate timekeeper, and penalties for shirt pulling at corners EVERY time, and no red cards for the last man where a penalty is given. I am not anti-change, I just don't think that in a flowing game video replays will be practical - I have time and again given my reasons on thread after thread, but the pro-brigade seem to ignore that (a bit like the "Yes" Jocks, when asked where's the money coming from). I absolutely guarantee within five games of it being introduced, you will be slagging the video ref for getting it wrong, because you didn't think it was a penalty/red card and he did. The one appeal argument, again, within five games Hansen and the like will be "Well, if you can have one appeal, why not four, five or six, it's ridiculous that an error as glaring as that is allowed to pass by just because the captain got an appeal wrong half an hour ago, when we have the technology to stamp that out". Or "Well if we can use video replays for penalties and red cards, why not offsides/free kicks/throw ins...". And even if you personally don't agree with that, the next generation will...
It's a can of worms I really don't want to see opened.
Have you been reading my mind ? Great post.
Great, if you like unrealistic hyperbole ;-)
So some technology is OK even when it only happens at the top end of the game. This goes against your previous stance doesn't it?
Acting hasn't been dealt with, has it? It's a massive game-spoiler.
The dive for the penalty in the Croatian game would have been appealed. 2 minutes later the penalty would not have been given - not by 'me' or 'you' - but by a match official applying the laws of the game. Objective not subjective. Fred would get a card and the game would have continued quicker than it actually did - how much time did the ref spend chasing away the crowd of Croation players in his face? Decision would have already have been made - and in this case it would have been the RIGHT decision, the FAIR decision, the BEST decision for the game/spirit and future of football. And you can be sure that once one or 2 divers have gone for a penalty but ended up with a card, possibly missing a semi final etc, there would be precious little repetition of this cheating in future tournaments.
PS. No one is suggesting reviews for throw ins. Nor is anyone suggesting six appeals. Ruins your argument saying that it might lead to other things. As ludicrous as saying weed is sure to lead to crack addiction.
I accept that you are never ever going to change your mind on this ART - but do me the courtesy of reading what I have written, rather than what you want me to have written so you can knock it back please.
You say no-one is suggesting reviews for throw ins, but a few posts above IA has done just that, albeit in a world where the referees make almost no decisions at all. Have you asked every other fan in the world whether they would want it extended to five or ten appeals, if it affected their team one week? It does not ruin my argument saying it could lead to other things, because you are not taking a blind bit of notice of what I have actually written in the first place, but that aside, you have already used the "we use it for goals, why not other things" line yourself. Why wouldn't others take a similar line with numbers of appeals/what video replays are used for? I say again, YOU might be happy to leave it at that, others will and are not happy to leave it at that.
I have not said that video replays should be used for throw ins. That's nothing like what I mentioned. I have suggested that 'goal line technology' could be used to buzz the referee to tell him/her than the ball has crossed the line, because that's a matter of fact not opinion.
"whether the ball is in/out, offside decision"
Took that to mean you would like technology to make the decision - which you do, but with goal line like tech, rather than replays - soz.
I shan't edit my original post or it will make yours look odd IA.
If there is the debate then the referee's original decision stands. It's not rocket science. I've been watching how long each feigned injury takes in three games, and re-watched how long it took the Croatians to intimidate the ref, how long the Portuguese assailed the ref after Muller cheated then Pepe lost it. These are the current lengthy interruptions to games. I'm positive that for major tournaments, and to minimise the suspicion of cheating, video referral for key events would take less time than the current faffing about. The hockey system seems right - one referral per coach per half. So a max of four.
All very interesting.
Stig - have you noticed the Fish advert (and all the others) at the Valley. We already have responsive advertising at most games. I'd sacrifice a couple of seconds of advertising for a fair game.
Comments
You cannot lose, either it stays as it is, and you carry on complaining about wrong decisions costing this that and the other. Or it changes, and whether it works or not, it will stay changed, because that's the way things are now, once a decision is made it is never reversed because people in charge NEVER have the bottle to say I got it wrong.
I point to 150 years of the game, you point to a dozen mistakes.. ;-)
(That's a little joke by the way, lest it be misinterpreted)
no corners
no substitutes
no limit to the height of the goals
no goalkeepers.
or goalkeepers who can catch the ball anywhere on the pitch
no referees or umpires
one handed throw ins
no penalty areas
no offsides
no red or yellow cards
no penalty shoot outs
You may be entrenched, but weren't you in favour of goal line technology after Lampard's goal against Germany?
Has that technology ruined the flow of your 150 year old game (or in fact it's much modernised and developed successor)?
Already in this world cup we have wasted more time waiting for feigned injuries to clear up - especially in the disgraceful cases of the Ivory Coast actors - than would ever be spent sorting out the penalty decisions!
I have always been in favour of goal line technology, because it is a FACT, not opinion. It happens instantly as you well know. It is practical to have that technology at all levels of the pro game, not the amateur (the money washing around the Premier league could easily pay for it to be installed and maintained down to conference south and north level without them even noticing.)
Acting can be dealt with, at all levels, without video replays.
I am also in favour of no-one talking to the ref other than the player concerned and the captain, no swearing at all at the officials, a separate timekeeper, and penalties for shirt pulling at corners EVERY time, and no red cards for the last man where a penalty is given. I am not anti-change, I just don't think that in a flowing game video replays will be practical - I have time and again given my reasons on thread after thread, but the pro-brigade seem to ignore that (a bit like the "Yes" Jocks, when asked where's the money coming from). I absolutely guarantee within five games of it being introduced, you will be slagging the video ref for getting it wrong, because you didn't think it was a penalty/red card and he did. The one appeal argument, again, within five games Hansen and the like will be "Well, if you can have one appeal, why not four, five or six, it's ridiculous that an error as glaring as that is allowed to pass by just because the captain got an appeal wrong half an hour ago, when we have the technology to stamp that out". Or "Well if we can use video replays for penalties and red cards, why not offsides/free kicks/throw ins...". And even if you personally don't agree with that, the next generation will...
It's a can of worms I really don't want to see opened.
Then, as more decisions of fact are automated, it allows the referees and linesmen to focus more on the decisions of opinion, ie whether it's a foul or a dive.
I'm not in favour of using video replays during a match. But I might support allowing referees view their decisions after a match and potentially apply retrospective punishment for cheats or fouls.
Don't know if that makes me a Luddite.
Rules may change of course, and I'm not against the principle of referral to a video referee - but that should be the referee's decision (as in rugby) and not based on an appeal by a manager.
So some technology is OK even when it only happens at the top end of the game. This goes against your previous stance doesn't it?
Acting hasn't been dealt with, has it? It's a massive game-spoiler.
The dive for the penalty in the Croatian game would have been appealed. 2 minutes later the penalty would not have been given - not by 'me' or 'you' - but by a match official applying the laws of the game. Objective not subjective. Fred would get a card and the game would have continued quicker than it actually did - how much time did the ref spend chasing away the crowd of Croation players in his face? Decision would have already have been made - and in this case it would have been the RIGHT decision, the FAIR decision, the BEST decision for the game/spirit and future of football. And you can be sure that once one or 2 divers have gone for a penalty but ended up with a card, possibly missing a semi final etc, there would be precious little repetition of this cheating in future tournaments.
PS. No one is suggesting reviews for throw ins. Nor is anyone suggesting six appeals. Ruins your argument saying that it might lead to other things. As ludicrous as saying weed is sure to lead to crack addiction.
As for the debate about whether teams can have one appeal, two appeals, thirty-three and a third appeals or whatever. This just gives away the lie about about the superiority of video technology. If it really would lead to a digital-dreamland, there'd be no question about the number of appeals; every decision should be made in this way not just a handful of them.
There's only one good thing that will come of the introduction of video technology and that is that it will shut up the all too vociferous pro-technology whinge brigade.
But there are some difficulties:
Offside,for example, is a difficult one. It should only be up to the referee to decide if a player is interfering with play, and what about the goal scored after the flag has gone up where the whole defending team plays to the flag and stops.
Diving is subjective as is handball: what's deliberate and what isn't.
I can see penalty appeals adding great tension and atmosphere to the game, whether it's by the attacking or defending team. But what about the prospect of an appeal after a penalty is saved because the keeper moved before the ball is kicked.
There are a number of difficult scenarios but I am in favour of a limited appeals system but only if it's a possible goal, goal prevention or penalty incident.
So the same could happen with video referrals
and what about managers using their allocated referrals to ruin the flow of a game, perhaps the opposition is on top and a particular incident that doesn't warrant a referral is 'referred' in a deliberate act of gamesmanship...this would probably need managing too?
I accept that goal line technology when applied to all levels of the professional game is a good thing. The top division is a start, but not enough. I repeat - because it is a matter of FACT not opinion.
Acting has not been dealt with - that'll be why I used the words "CAN BE DEALT WITH".
How do you know the video match official would have not given the penalty? How do you know he would not have decided that the ref got it spot on? Or have you never ever, seen an incident where the ref thinks one way, Manish Basin and you think the same, but the commentator and Leroy Rosenior and your mate Brian think different? Even after ten different replay angles? I would say on an average weekend of watching televised football that happens about twice every week. The diving and cheating can and should be dealt with in retrospect, punished severely whether or not the referee has made a (wrong) decision at the time (another change ASSISTED by video replays that I do approve of). And did you ever see Dermot Gallagher on Monday morning on SSN reviewing the weekends refereeing decisions? The number of times a season he didn't find a reason why his colleague had got it right you could count on one hand. The refs are very loyal and protective of each other ART - there but for the grace of god go they...
I wonder how the referees themselves view the introduction of video replays? Have you asked them?
You say no-one is suggesting reviews for throw ins, but a few posts above IA has done just that, albeit in a world where the referees make almost no decisions at all. Have you asked every other fan in the world whether they would want it extended to five or ten appeals, if it affected their team one week? It does not ruin my argument saying it could lead to other things, because you are not taking a blind bit of notice of what I have actually written in the first place, but that aside, you have already used the - we use it for goals, why not other things - line yourself. Why wouldn't others take a similar line with numbers of appeals/what video replays are used for? I say again, YOU might be happy to leave it at that, others will and are not happy to leave it at that.
Took that to mean you would like technology to make the decision - which you do, but with goal line like tech, rather than replays - soz.
I shan't edit my original post or it will make yours look odd IA.
In theory that could include offside and handball, but I know the technology isn't there yet
There you go A-R-T-H-U-R! :-)
It's not rocket science.
I've been watching how long each feigned injury takes in three games, and re-watched how long it took the Croatians to intimidate the ref, how long the Portuguese assailed the ref after Muller cheated then Pepe lost it.
These are the current lengthy interruptions to games. I'm positive that for major tournaments, and to minimise the suspicion of cheating, video referral for key events would take less time than the current faffing about.
The hockey system seems right - one referral per coach per half. So a max of four.
All very interesting.
Stig - have you noticed the Fish advert (and all the others) at the Valley. We already have responsive advertising at most games. I'd sacrifice a couple of seconds of advertising for a fair game.