if it can be implemented immediately via a fifth official then sure
it might help stop or decrease all the 'argy bargy' at corners and free kicks .. on the other hand will every incident be spotted and penalised to ensure that 'justice' is done ?
I like the fact that mistakes happen, it's the human element of any sport right? As frustrating as it may be, striker missing an open goal or whether it be a referee getting a decision wrong.
Saying that... there is so much money in football now and the pressure on referees is bigger than it has ever been. I don't see it as a bad thing but it all depends how well it's implemented and how quickly the video ref brings something to their attention. Also, the games stops. What if the referee disagrees with the guy with the video?
if it can be implemented immediately via a fifth official then sure
it might help stop or decrease all the 'argy bargy' at corners and free kicks .. on the other hand will every incident be spotted and penalised to ensure that 'justice' is done ?
.......only in the Premier League or maybe the Chamoionship. Costs will be prohibitive outside of that (similar to the goal line technology). Ultimately means that the pro game will be refereed inconsistently.
Bad idea. I have seen plenty of occasions on the telly when two or three pundits have spent half an hour looking at umpteen different angles of a penalty incident and still can't agree between themselves whether it's a penalty or not.
No system is perfect, but I am quite happy to rely on a referee's initial interpretation of an incident. Sometimes that will work in our favour, sometimes it won't.
I would much rather they introduced some proper sanctions to discourage players from constantly trying to con the referee, you'd get much fewer bad decisions, video evidence or not, if they managed to cut diving out of the game.
Bad idea. I have seen plenty of occasions on the telly when two or three pundits have spent half an hour looking at umpteen different angles of a penalty incident and still can't agree between themselves whether it's a penalty or not.
No system is perfect, but I am quite happy to rely on a referee's initial interpretation of an incident. Sometimes that will work in our favour, sometimes it won't.
I would much rather they introduced some proper sanctions to discourage players from constantly trying to con the referee, you'd get much fewer bad decisions, video evidence or not, if they managed to cut diving out of the game.
How can you tell if something's a dive if you can't agree if something's a penalty?
I'm fine with such a system being brought in for blatant stuff that isn't open to interpretation, like a clear offside call or an obvious handball
It's too hard to implement. It is easy if the ball has gone out of play.
However, if the ball doesn't go out of play the defending team's potential counter attack is halted, the decision reviewed, then play restarts. Therefore the counter attack and a chance of scoring a goal has gone.
Bad idea. I have seen plenty of occasions on the telly when two or three pundits have spent half an hour looking at umpteen different angles of a penalty incident and still can't agree between themselves whether it's a penalty or not.
No system is perfect, but I am quite happy to rely on a referee's initial interpretation of an incident. Sometimes that will work in our favour, sometimes it won't.
I would much rather they introduced some proper sanctions to discourage players from constantly trying to con the referee, you'd get much fewer bad decisions, video evidence or not, if they managed to cut diving out of the game.
How can you tell if something's a dive if you can't agree if something's a penalty?
I'm fine with such a system being brought in for blatant stuff that isn't open to interpretation, like a clear offside call or an obvious handball
As I said, no system's perfect. However, when looking at diving retrospectively, you have a panel who can examine all of the footage at their leisure - you will get more correct decisions that way than 1 referee looking at a screen in the middle of a stadium with 40,000 fans and tv audience of millions watching him.
Also, if you bring in tougher sanctions for diving (a 3 match ban, for argument's sake) then you discourage people from doing it, which makes the referee's life easier because he's no longer trying to work out whether he's been conned, only whether a tackle was fair or not.
some good comments so far .. just the spice of life .. you just cannot please everyone all the time .. vive la difference (sorry for writing in south Belgian) .. and so be it ((:>)
Bad idea. I have seen plenty of occasions on the telly when two or three pundits have spent half an hour looking at umpteen different angles of a penalty incident and still can't agree between themselves whether it's a penalty or not.
No system is perfect, but I am quite happy to rely on a referee's initial interpretation of an incident. Sometimes that will work in our favour, sometimes it won't.
I would much rather they introduced some proper sanctions to discourage players from constantly trying to con the referee, you'd get much fewer bad decisions, video evidence or not, if they managed to cut diving out of the game.
Exactly
Why this is never highlighted every time video technology is mentioned I don't know. It's a vital point.
Imagine if when they introduced touch line technology a few decisions were later proven wrong. It would cause chaos. Same principle for video technology. Penalty etc reviewed and awarded based on video replay, manager and pundits still disagree after the match. Then you'll have the same people who wanted it clamouring to get rid of it from the sport.
Touch line tech works because it's a definitive answer. Penaltys etc are not. Not all the time anyway
I think if done properly it can add to the suspense as it does in Rugby and Cricket. I'd limit one appeal per team and give the ref the authority to check if he is unsure. The proviso should be that only a significant event can be challenged e.g - booking/sending off or material in a goal. If a team uses their one appeal and they are wrong, they lose it! I'd also add a rule that a team that appeals wrongly on three consecutive occasions loses it for their next game. This will stop spurious silly appeals with a minute to go or in injury time!
Above all it will increase the fairness which has to be a good thing.
It's too hard to implement. It is easy if the ball has gone out of play.
However, if the ball doesn't go out of play the defending team's potential counter attack is halted, the decision reviewed, then play restarts. Therefore the counter attack and a chance of scoring a goal has gone.
I think open play should continue even if the offending team counter attacks and scores. A referee could then make a decision based on the camera evidence to allow a penalty award against the offending team which would potentially even out the goal if scored against the one conceded thus allowing both goals.
It's too hard to implement. It is easy if the ball has gone out of play.
However, if the ball doesn't go out of play the defending team's potential counter attack is halted, the decision reviewed, then play restarts. Therefore the counter attack and a chance of scoring a goal has gone.
I think open play should continue even if the offending team counter attacks and scores. A referee could then make a decision based on the camera evidence to allow a penalty award against the offending team which would potentially even out the goal if scored against the one conceded thus allowing both goals.
It's too hard to implement. It is easy if the ball has gone out of play.
However, if the ball doesn't go out of play the defending team's potential counter attack is halted, the decision reviewed, then play restarts. Therefore the counter attack and a chance of scoring a goal has gone.
I think open play should continue even if the offending team counter attacks and scores. A referee could then make a decision based on the camera evidence to allow a penalty award against the offending team which would potentially even out the goal if scored against the one conceded thus allowing both goals.
How would that work with the away goal rule though?
Not concerned with penalties .. other problems .. Man City v Arsenal this weekend gone .. both City goals were marginally offside .. Arsenal deprived against a major opponent.. points and massive amounts of money at stake ..
Rugby Union .. Connaught v Wasps .. referee gets a 'law' wrong concerning when a game finishes, costing Wasps the game .. nobody corrects him and this in a game where video replay is widely used
I've liked the comments about 'error and chance' and kind of agree .. but decisions like these in major tournaments are very hard to bear for fans, players and managers of the teams concerned
Look at how successful goal line technology is. Been used a few times and shuts down any dissent of the final decision as you can't argue with technology.
Comments
Saying that... there is so much money in football now and the pressure on referees is bigger than it has ever been. I don't see it as a bad thing but it all depends how well it's implemented and how quickly the video ref brings something to their attention. Also, the games stops. What if the referee disagrees with the guy with the video?
Ultimately means that the pro game will be refereed inconsistently.
For that reason.....I'm out
No system is perfect, but I am quite happy to rely on a referee's initial interpretation of an incident. Sometimes that will work in our favour, sometimes it won't.
I would much rather they introduced some proper sanctions to discourage players from constantly trying to con the referee, you'd get much fewer bad decisions, video evidence or not, if they managed to cut diving out of the game.
I'm fine with such a system being brought in for blatant stuff that isn't open to interpretation, like a clear offside call or an obvious handball
However, if the ball doesn't go out of play the defending team's potential counter attack is halted, the decision reviewed, then play restarts. Therefore the counter attack and a chance of scoring a goal has gone.
Also, if you bring in tougher sanctions for diving (a 3 match ban, for argument's sake) then you discourage people from doing it, which makes the referee's life easier because he's no longer trying to work out whether he's been conned, only whether a tackle was fair or not.
Why this is never highlighted every time video technology is mentioned I don't know. It's a vital point.
Imagine if when they introduced touch line technology a few decisions were later proven wrong. It would cause chaos.
Same principle for video technology. Penalty etc reviewed and awarded based on video replay, manager and pundits still disagree after the match. Then you'll have the same people who wanted it clamouring to get rid of it from the sport.
Touch line tech works because it's a definitive answer. Penaltys etc are not. Not all the time anyway
Above all it will increase the fairness which has to be a good thing.
Rugby Union .. Connaught v Wasps .. referee gets a 'law' wrong concerning when a game finishes, costing Wasps the game .. nobody corrects him and this in a game where video replay is widely used
I've liked the comments about 'error and chance' and kind of agree .. but decisions like these in major tournaments are very hard to bear for fans, players and managers of the teams concerned
Great news and should be implemented.