Of course its a good idea, its been needed for years, the game is so fast compared to when the elderly chubbers who are moaning about the new technology played. Yes its not infallible, there will always be a few decisions that cant be determined, but thats no reason to not embrace it, it will get more right than wrong and right now there are so many errors made by refs. Also its total bollox that it will extend the game time, whenever there is a contentious decision at the moment, the referee is surrounded by players who piss and whine, that takes more time to sort out than a bloke in the stand checking a replay.
Great news!
Yeah, it's a buggar that human beings cannot get more than 98% (referees) and (99.3%) (Assistant Refs) key decisions correct (latest stats).
A bit of human error in football is fine, personally think this isn't a great idea. Football is totally different to Cricket say, because of that single euphoria of scoring a goal. Its just nowhere near as good celebrating a goal knowing that the other team might 'review' it.
A bit of human error in football is fine, personally think this isn't a great idea. Football is totally different to Cricket say, because of that single euphoria of scoring a goal. Its just nowhere near as good celebrating a goal knowing that the other team might 'review' it.
Except that's exactly what happens in cricket when an lbw decision is given by the umpire - there are now a few seconds of uncertainty while the batsmen in the middle decide whether or not to review it. Taking a wicket is a pretty euphoric feeling, isn't it? I'd say it's similar to the feeling of scoring a goal. It has changed things, but a few seconds of uncertainty is IMO a small price to pay to ensure the right decision is made.
I guess it's a question of priorities. Mine is that, now that we have the technology, I'd rather we used it to get as many key decisions right as possible.
Of course its a good idea, its been needed for years, the game is so fast compared to when the elderly chubbers who are moaning about the new technology played. Yes its not infallible, there will always be a few decisions that cant be determined, but thats no reason to not embrace it, it will get more right than wrong and right now there are so many errors made by refs. Also its total bollox that it will extend the game time, whenever there is a contentious decision at the moment, the referee is surrounded by players who piss and whine, that takes more time to sort out than a bloke in the stand checking a replay.
Great news!
Yeah, it's a buggar that human beings cannot get more than 98% (referees) and (99.3%) (Assistant Refs) key decisions correct (latest stats).
Says who? - I am calling a massive steaming pile of Bull Shit on that one.....I've heard it all now, its the big decisions PG, not wether its a throw in or goal kick that even Stevie Wonder could call correctly on....Ha Ha Ha....do me a favour....!
Of course its a good idea, its been needed for years, the game is so fast compared to when the elderly chubbers who are moaning about the new technology played. Yes its not infallible, there will always be a few decisions that cant be determined, but thats no reason to not embrace it, it will get more right than wrong and right now there are so many errors made by refs. Also its total bollox that it will extend the game time, whenever there is a contentious decision at the moment, the referee is surrounded by players who piss and whine, that takes more time to sort out than a bloke in the stand checking a replay.
Great news!
Yeah, it's a buggar that human beings cannot get more than 98% (referees) and (99.3%) (Assistant Refs) key decisions correct (latest stats).
Says who? - I am calling a massive steaming pile of Bull Shit on that one.....I've heard it all now, its the big decisions PG, not wether its a throw in or goal kick that even Stevie Wonder could call correctly on....Ha Ha Ha....do me a favour....!
Those stats may be 100% accurate, but they're meaningless pretty much. If a lino get's 100 throw-ins correct and 1 match changing offside wrong he still has 99% correct. It's not the number of decisions made correctly as the majority are fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It's getting the big critical decisions right and they're the hard ones, they're the ones the players try hardest to sway in their favour. Was the foul outside the box or just in? The player sailed 8ft through the air to land a long way in the box just to make the decision harder. Or the offside after the ball pinged around a crowded box. These are the critical decisions, the ones where a second look will make a big difference and the ones being targeted by new technology. I don't car how many meaningless decisions an official gets right if they get the important ones wrong. Players aren't going to help the officials, so somebody else has to.
Of course its a good idea, its been needed for years, the game is so fast compared to when the elderly chubbers who are moaning about the new technology played. Yes its not infallible, there will always be a few decisions that cant be determined, but thats no reason to not embrace it, it will get more right than wrong and right now there are so many errors made by refs. Also its total bollox that it will extend the game time, whenever there is a contentious decision at the moment, the referee is surrounded by players who piss and whine, that takes more time to sort out than a bloke in the stand checking a replay.
Great news!
Yeah, it's a buggar that human beings cannot get more than 98% (referees) and (99.3%) (Assistant Refs) key decisions correct (latest stats).
Says who? - I am calling a massive steaming pile of Bull Shit on that one.....I've heard it all now, its the big decisions PG, not wether its a throw in or goal kick that even Stevie Wonder could call correctly on....Ha Ha Ha....do me a favour....!
Those stats may be 100% accurate, but they're meaningless pretty much. If a lino get's 100 throw-ins correct and 1 match changing offside wrong he still has 99% correct. It's not the number of decisions made correctly as the majority are fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It's getting the big critical decisions right and they're the hard ones, they're the ones the players try hardest to sway in their favour. Was the foul outside the box or just in? The player sailed 8ft through the air to land a long way in the box just to make the decision harder. Or the offside after the ball pinged around a crowded box. These are the critical decisions, the ones where a second look will make a big difference and the ones being targeted by new technology. I don't car how many meaningless decisions an official gets right if they get the important ones wrong. Players aren't going to help the officials, so somebody else has to.
Why? Do you want games decided by wrong decisions?
What if those doing the video technology get if wrong... Happens in cricket. And to what is it going to be applied to. I want a game to ffinish at 16.55/21.40 not 18.00 & 22.30
What a load of tosh, I have never seen a rugby game run over by an hour due to video appeals.
So there will be no delay, and of course i was exaggerating most sensible people knew that
The question isn't whether or not there will be a delay, the question is will the time taken by the video ref be longer than the amount of time the team on the wrong end of the original decision contest it with the referee. It generally takes a minute or more from when the ball hits the net to the game kicking off again, longer if the defending team are chasing the ref to insist it was offside. In last night's trial it took less than 50 seconds every single time the video ref studied a decision. Based on that your concerns would seem baseless.
If its baseless what if there are several off side reviews. Will the game still finish on time, and ss algarve ss said where eill it end. Be careful what you wish for.
The game never finishes "on-time", that's what stoppage time is. We may see stoppage time increase, but only because referees are unlikely to have included time he spent fending off gaggles of players contesting his decisions.
My only concern is that it becomes like front-foot no-balls in cricket. I.e. whenever the ball is bouncing around the box the linesman simply won't flag for offside, even if he thinks there is one, knowing that any incorrect goals will get reviewed and disallowed. It will take strong leadership from the FA on this, which is never a given unfortunately.
Concerns about games running overly long seem to be massively exagerated. Technology will initially be used in a small set of well defined circumstances, trialled extensively and judged on it's merits. If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits (quality of decisions vs time taken). So checking to see if a goals should be ruled out for offside is quick and easy and improved decisions, include it.
This statement: "If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits" seems to be completely at odds with this one: "Also, mentioned of "thin edge of the wedge" are a bit off the mark"? Each expansion is going further down the "slippery slope", clearly.
You are agitating for change up to the arbitrary point that you have chosen. Others (as I have said) will not agree, they will want to take it further. At which point you become the stick-in-the-mud, like me, and they tell you they are progressive and that change is inevitable
As long as each suggested change is researched and trialled to see it's effect on the game I'm for anything that improves the level of decision quality as long as it doesn't impact negatively on other aspects.
As it stands, players cheat, continually and without remorse. They will take any advantage they can possibly get and try to con the ref at every opportunity. If we could remove even a fraction of that from the game then I think it's worth it. I want to see great football, not great cheaters winning due the officials being unable to distinguish the difference. The only way to stop cheating is first to detect it and then to punish it. Video will allow us to do the first and it is then to see whether the various authorities have the stomach to do the second.
It's not an arbitary point I have chosen, it's the arbitary point that has been chosen by the authorities trialling the systems. At the moment it's for offside and location of fouls (penalty/no penalty). The will inevitably be a point where the authorities decide that there are decisions they don't want taken away from the referee, even if there are technologies that could help.
Personally I've seen enough bad refereeing from both the stands and on the pitch to not lament for a second the officials being given better tools to allow them to make better decisions. The only ones who should fear the changes are those that rely on bad decisions to get results.
"There will inevitably be a point where the authorities decide that there are decisions they don't want taken away from the referee, even if there are technologies that could help." What if you don't agree with that point? As I don't with the point we appear to be reaching now? Will you just say "Oh okay, they know best"? Given the intensity of argument you have out up to now, I very much doubt it, Andy (nothing wrong in that, by the way). And even if you don't, others will keep pushing... That's "the slippery slope". No-one EVER relied on bad decisions to get them results, forgive me for being a bit rude, but that's a bit of a silly argument.
You will "win" anyway, but I like the randomness and passion and fun of football, and mistakes are part of that.
Of course its a good idea, its been needed for years, the game is so fast compared to when the elderly chubbers who are moaning about the new technology played. Yes its not infallible, there will always be a few decisions that cant be determined, but thats no reason to not embrace it, it will get more right than wrong and right now there are so many errors made by refs. Also its total bollox that it will extend the game time, whenever there is a contentious decision at the moment, the referee is surrounded by players who piss and whine, that takes more time to sort out than a bloke in the stand checking a replay.
Great news!
Yeah, it's a buggar that human beings cannot get more than 98% (referees) and (99.3%) (Assistant Refs) key decisions correct (latest stats).
Says who? - I am calling a massive steaming pile of Bull Shit on that one.....I've heard it all now, its the big decisions PG, not wether its a throw in or goal kick that even Stevie Wonder could call correctly on....Ha Ha Ha....do me a favour....!
Bit disrespectful Greenie? PG has been a ref and I am sure he isn't given to making stuff up, as are some folk on CL...
Of course its a good idea, its been needed for years, the game is so fast compared to when the elderly chubbers who are moaning about the new technology played. Yes its not infallible, there will always be a few decisions that cant be determined, but thats no reason to not embrace it, it will get more right than wrong and right now there are so many errors made by refs. Also its total bollox that it will extend the game time, whenever there is a contentious decision at the moment, the referee is surrounded by players who piss and whine, that takes more time to sort out than a bloke in the stand checking a replay.
Great news!
Yeah, it's a buggar that human beings cannot get more than 98% (referees) and (99.3%) (Assistant Refs) key decisions correct (latest stats).
Says who? - I am calling a massive steaming pile of Bull Shit on that one.....I've heard it all now, its the big decisions PG, not wether its a throw in or goal kick that even Stevie Wonder could call correctly on....Ha Ha Ha....do me a favour....!
Those stats may be 100% accurate, but they're meaningless pretty much. If a lino get's 100 throw-ins correct and 1 match changing offside wrong he still has 99% correct. It's not the number of decisions made correctly as the majority are fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It's getting the big critical decisions right and they're the hard ones, they're the ones the players try hardest to sway in their favour. Was the foul outside the box or just in? The player sailed 8ft through the air to land a long way in the box just to make the decision harder. Or the offside after the ball pinged around a crowded box. These are the critical decisions, the ones where a second look will make a big difference and the ones being targeted by new technology. I don't car how many meaningless decisions an official gets right if they get the important ones wrong. Players aren't going to help the officials, so somebody else has to.
But once the can or worms is opened and we start to encourage more and more use of "video technology" (or whatever it might end up being called), more and more of the decisions will be reviewable and seen as critical. Example: if a team scores from a cross after a short throw and the video review shows that (a) the goal was not offside; (b) the throw was not a foul throw; and (c) the throw should have been awarded the other way, what do you do?
Another example. How would you deal with this @randy andy or anyone else?
What the ref sees: Red team crosses from the wing, blue team 'keeper catches it, runs up to the edge of the box and throws it to the blue full back, very close to the touch-line, who launches a cross-field pass to the on-running blue centre forward, who runs with the ball and scores.
What the video evidence shows: (working backwards) The centre forward was not offside. The ball did not go out of play when it was received by the full back. The 'keeper did not leave the penalty area until after he had released the ball. The ball had crossed the goal-line when the winger crossed the ball.
Do you (a) disallow the goal, and award a goal-kick to the blue team, because there is incontrovertible proof that the ball went out of play before the 'keeper caught it? Or (b) allow the goal, and ignore the proof that the video refs sees?
(And you can't change the laws of the game in order to answer this one!)
Why? Do you want games decided by wrong decisions?
What if those doing the video technology get if wrong... Happens in cricket. And to what is it going to be applied to. I want a game to ffinish at 16.55/21.40 not 18.00 & 22.30
What a load of tosh, I have never seen a rugby game run over by an hour due to video appeals.
So there will be no delay, and of course i was exaggerating most sensible people knew that
The question isn't whether or not there will be a delay, the question is will the time taken by the video ref be longer than the amount of time the team on the wrong end of the original decision contest it with the referee. It generally takes a minute or more from when the ball hits the net to the game kicking off again, longer if the defending team are chasing the ref to insist it was offside. In last night's trial it took less than 50 seconds every single time the video ref studied a decision. Based on that your concerns would seem baseless.
If its baseless what if there are several off side reviews. Will the game still finish on time, and ss algarve ss said where eill it end. Be careful what you wish for.
The game never finishes "on-time", that's what stoppage time is. We may see stoppage time increase, but only because referees are unlikely to have included time he spent fending off gaggles of players contesting his decisions.
My only concern is that it becomes like front-foot no-balls in cricket. I.e. whenever the ball is bouncing around the box the linesman simply won't flag for offside, even if he thinks there is one, knowing that any incorrect goals will get reviewed and disallowed. It will take strong leadership from the FA on this, which is never a given unfortunately.
Concerns about games running overly long seem to be massively exagerated. Technology will initially be used in a small set of well defined circumstances, trialled extensively and judged on it's merits. If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits (quality of decisions vs time taken). So checking to see if a goals should be ruled out for offside is quick and easy and improved decisions, include it.
This statement: "If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits" seems to be completely at odds with this one: "Also, mentioned of "thin edge of the wedge" are a bit off the mark"? Each expansion is going further down the "slippery slope", clearly.
You are agitating for change up to the arbitrary point that you have chosen. Others (as I have said) will not agree, they will want to take it further. At which point you become the stick-in-the-mud, like me, and they tell you they are progressive and that change is inevitable
As long as each suggested change is researched and trialled to see it's effect on the game I'm for anything that improves the level of decision quality as long as it doesn't impact negatively on other aspects.
As it stands, players cheat, continually and without remorse. They will take any advantage they can possibly get and try to con the ref at every opportunity. If we could remove even a fraction of that from the game then I think it's worth it. I want to see great football, not great cheaters winning due the officials being unable to distinguish the difference. The only way to stop cheating is first to detect it and then to punish it. Video will allow us to do the first and it is then to see whether the various authorities have the stomach to do the second.
It's not an arbitary point I have chosen, it's the arbitary point that has been chosen by the authorities trialling the systems. At the moment it's for offside and location of fouls (penalty/no penalty). The will inevitably be a point where the authorities decide that there are decisions they don't want taken away from the referee, even if there are technologies that could help.
Personally I've seen enough bad refereeing from both the stands and on the pitch to not lament for a second the officials being given better tools to allow them to make better decisions. The only ones who should fear the changes are those that rely on bad decisions to get results.
"There will inevitably be a point where the authorities decide that there are decisions they don't want taken away from the referee, even if there are technologies that could help." What if you don't agree with that point? As I don't with the point we appear to be reaching now? Will you just say "Oh okay, they know best"? Given the intensity of argument you have out up to now, I very much doubt it, Andy (nothing wrong in that, by the way). And even if you don't, others will keep pushing... That's "the slippery slope". No-one EVER relied on bad decisions to get them results, forgive me for being a bit rude, but that's a bit of a silly argument.
You will "win" anyway, but I like the randomness and passion and fun of football, and mistakes are part of that.
Maybe I'm overstating it a bit, but I remember a game, Fulham vs Bolton. Big Sam was manager at the time. They had 3 players sent off. After the game Big Same didn't moan about bad decisions from the officials, or his players' lack of discipline. His only complaint was nobody told him the ref and linesmen would be in radio contact throughout the game. He basically admitted that his tactics were to have his players commit fouls when the ref wasn't looking, relying on those unpunished fouls (non-decisions rather than bad decisions I'll admit) to get the result.
I don't like the randomness and mistakes. I want to feel when we lose that it's because we were well beaten, not that the opposition had to rely on officiating mistakes to beat us. If I could scrap officials completely and have the rules magically and accurately enforced I would.
Would snooker be a better spectacle if the umpires made randomly dodgy decisions? Would the 100m final be better if we had a ref eyeballing close finishes? Of course not, we want the winner to be the better competitor on the day and in any close competition the last thing we want is the officials effecting the outcome.
Why? Do you want games decided by wrong decisions?
What if those doing the video technology get if wrong... Happens in cricket. And to what is it going to be applied to. I want a game to ffinish at 16.55/21.40 not 18.00 & 22.30
What a load of tosh, I have never seen a rugby game run over by an hour due to video appeals.
So there will be no delay, and of course i was exaggerating most sensible people knew that
The question isn't whether or not there will be a delay, the question is will the time taken by the video ref be longer than the amount of time the team on the wrong end of the original decision contest it with the referee. It generally takes a minute or more from when the ball hits the net to the game kicking off again, longer if the defending team are chasing the ref to insist it was offside. In last night's trial it took less than 50 seconds every single time the video ref studied a decision. Based on that your concerns would seem baseless.
If its baseless what if there are several off side reviews. Will the game still finish on time, and ss algarve ss said where eill it end. Be careful what you wish for.
The game never finishes "on-time", that's what stoppage time is. We may see stoppage time increase, but only because referees are unlikely to have included time he spent fending off gaggles of players contesting his decisions.
My only concern is that it becomes like front-foot no-balls in cricket. I.e. whenever the ball is bouncing around the box the linesman simply won't flag for offside, even if he thinks there is one, knowing that any incorrect goals will get reviewed and disallowed. It will take strong leadership from the FA on this, which is never a given unfortunately.
Concerns about games running overly long seem to be massively exagerated. Technology will initially be used in a small set of well defined circumstances, trialled extensively and judged on it's merits. If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits (quality of decisions vs time taken). So checking to see if a goals should be ruled out for offside is quick and easy and improved decisions, include it.
This statement: "If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits" seems to be completely at odds with this one: "Also, mentioned of "thin edge of the wedge" are a bit off the mark"? Each expansion is going further down the "slippery slope", clearly.
You are agitating for change up to the arbitrary point that you have chosen. Others (as I have said) will not agree, they will want to take it further. At which point you become the stick-in-the-mud, like me, and they tell you they are progressive and that change is inevitable
As long as each suggested change is researched and trialled to see it's effect on the game I'm for anything that improves the level of decision quality as long as it doesn't impact negatively on other aspects.
As it stands, players cheat, continually and without remorse. They will take any advantage they can possibly get and try to con the ref at every opportunity. If we could remove even a fraction of that from the game then I think it's worth it. I want to see great football, not great cheaters winning due the officials being unable to distinguish the difference. The only way to stop cheating is first to detect it and then to punish it. Video will allow us to do the first and it is then to see whether the various authorities have the stomach to do the second.
It's not an arbitary point I have chosen, it's the arbitary point that has been chosen by the authorities trialling the systems. At the moment it's for offside and location of fouls (penalty/no penalty). The will inevitably be a point where the authorities decide that there are decisions they don't want taken away from the referee, even if there are technologies that could help.
Personally I've seen enough bad refereeing from both the stands and on the pitch to not lament for a second the officials being given better tools to allow them to make better decisions. The only ones who should fear the changes are those that rely on bad decisions to get results.
"There will inevitably be a point where the authorities decide that there are decisions they don't want taken away from the referee, even if there are technologies that could help." What if you don't agree with that point? As I don't with the point we appear to be reaching now? Will you just say "Oh okay, they know best"? Given the intensity of argument you have out up to now, I very much doubt it, Andy (nothing wrong in that, by the way). And even if you don't, others will keep pushing... That's "the slippery slope". No-one EVER relied on bad decisions to get them results, forgive me for being a bit rude, but that's a bit of a silly argument.
You will "win" anyway, but I like the randomness and passion and fun of football, and mistakes are part of that.
Maybe I'm overstating it a bit, but I remember a game, Fulham vs Bolton. Big Sam was manager at the time. They had 3 players sent off. After the game Big Same didn't moan about bad decisions from the officials, or his players' lack of discipline. His only complaint was nobody told him the ref and linesmen would be in radio contact throughout the game. He basically admitted that his tactics were to have his players commit fouls when the ref wasn't looking, relying on those unpunished fouls (non-decisions rather than bad decisions I'll admit) to get the result.
I don't like the randomness and mistakes. I want to feel when we lose that it's because we were well beaten, not that the opposition had to rely on officiating mistakes to beat us. If I could scrap officials completely and have the rules magically and accurately enforced I would.
Would snooker be a better spectacle if the umpires made randomly dodgy decisions? Would the 100m final be better if we had a ref eyeballing close finishes? Of course not, we want the winner to be the better competitor on the day and in any close competition the last thing we want is the officials effecting the outcome.
You want those things, I don't Andy. We have to agree to differ. Nice discussion though!
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
Why is the video ref looking at this? Existing goal line technology already answers this, it would never go to a video ref.
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
Why is the video ref looking at this? Existing goal line technology already answers this, it would never go to a video ref.
No, goal line technology only looks at balls crossing the line *between the posts* - what would you do in the above scenario?
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
So to clarify: the red team had been attacking and crossed the ball into the box, the curve on the cross meant the ball went behind the goalline and came back in before the keeper caught it and set up the blue team's attack? And I assume when the ball hit the bar (from the blue team's centre forward's header) it bounced into the goal and back out, the defender hacked it away, it went upstairs for the video ref to judge that it had crossed the line and award the goal?
If we get video refs, wouldn't they be in addition to the existing goalline technology rather than replacing it? I don't think the video ref would look that far back if play had continued for that length of time. And if the video refs were monitoring whether the red team's cross had crossed the goalline at the other end (the end the blue team were defending) before coming back in, wouldn't he/she have seen that the ball had gone out of play and told the ref via the microphone, so that the ref could then bring play back for the goal kick to the blue team?
None of you morons are understanding Chizz's point here. Let me illustrate the terrifying ambiguities of video refereeing with a clearer example. The attacking team wins a throw-in. However, the video ref notices that the defending team have snuck a dog onto the pitch just as the throw is taken. The dog bites the striker just as he receives the ball. However, the video ref now notices that it isn't a dog, it's all in his imagination. Meanwhile the striker turns and shoots. The dog catches the shot in his mouth and runs into the goal from an offside position. The goalkeeper breaks down crying. Should the referee offer him a tissue? That's the kind of impossible decision we want to avoid
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
So to clarify: the red team had been attacking and crossed the ball into the box, the curve on the cross meant the ball went behind the goalline and came back in before the keeper caught it and set up the blue team's attack? And I assume when the ball hit the bar (from the blue team's centre forward's header) it bounced into the goal and back out, the defender hacked it away, it went upstairs for the video ref to judge that it had crossed the line and award the goal?
If we get video refs, wouldn't they be in addition to the existing goalline technology rather than replacing it? I don't think the video ref would look that far back if play had continued for that length of time. And if the video refs were monitoring whether the red team's cross had crossed the goalline at the other end (the end the blue team were defending) before coming back in, wouldn't he/she have seen that the ball had gone out of play and told the ref via the microphone, so that the ref could then bring play back for the goal kick to the blue team?
Sorry if I've misunderstood/am being dim.
You've understood perfectly.
So, are you saying that the video ref would monitor the original cross and tell the ref to stop the game? If that's the case, the ref would probably be stopping the attack in order to give the attacking team a goal kick. Awful!
And, if you think the video ref wouldn't look that far back (maybe six seconds), we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand. Also awful!
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
So to clarify: the red team had been attacking and crossed the ball into the box, the curve on the cross meant the ball went behind the goalline and came back in before the keeper caught it and set up the blue team's attack? And I assume when the ball hit the bar (from the blue team's centre forward's header) it bounced into the goal and back out, the defender hacked it away, it went upstairs for the video ref to judge that it had crossed the line and award the goal?
If we get video refs, wouldn't they be in addition to the existing goalline technology rather than replacing it? I don't think the video ref would look that far back if play had continued for that length of time. And if the video refs were monitoring whether the red team's cross had crossed the goalline at the other end (the end the blue team were defending) before coming back in, wouldn't he/she have seen that the ball had gone out of play and told the ref via the microphone, so that the ref could then bring play back for the goal kick to the blue team?
Sorry if I've misunderstood/am being dim.
You've understood perfectly.
So, are you saying that the video ref would monitor the original cross and tell the ref to stop the game? If that's the case, the ref would probably be stopping the attack in order to give the attacking team a goal kick. Awful!
And, if you think the video ref wouldn't look that far back (maybe six seconds), we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand. Also awful!
In my view, video refs are a non-starter.
If the ball goes out of play the game stops. The team now attacking (the blue team here) can have no complaints that their lightning quick counter attack has been brought back, because the ball had gone out of play before it began! How is that 'awful'?
You've picked a very particular, rare scenario to come to the conclusion that video refs wouldn't work. Neither I nor anyone else is saying that there wouldn't still be controversial incidents, whereby perhaps one wrong decision was missed but another was spotted and corrected. But I come back to the point I made before: video refs will help us get more decisions right than we currently do. That's reason enough to have them.
Comments
I guess it's a question of priorities. Mine is that, now that we have the technology, I'd rather we used it to get as many key decisions right as possible.
You will "win" anyway, but I like the randomness and passion and fun of football, and mistakes are part of that.
Another example. How would you deal with this @randy andy or anyone else?
What the ref sees: Red team crosses from the wing, blue team 'keeper catches it, runs up to the edge of the box and throws it to the blue full back, very close to the touch-line, who launches a cross-field pass to the on-running blue centre forward, who runs with the ball and scores.
What the video evidence shows: (working backwards) The centre forward was not offside. The ball did not go out of play when it was received by the full back. The 'keeper did not leave the penalty area until after he had released the ball. The ball had crossed the goal-line when the winger crossed the ball.
Do you (a) disallow the goal, and award a goal-kick to the blue team, because there is incontrovertible proof that the ball went out of play before the 'keeper caught it? Or (b) allow the goal, and ignore the proof that the video refs sees?
(And you can't change the laws of the game in order to answer this one!)
I don't like the randomness and mistakes. I want to feel when we lose that it's because we were well beaten, not that the opposition had to rely on officiating mistakes to beat us. If I could scrap officials completely and have the rules magically and accurately enforced I would.
Would snooker be a better spectacle if the umpires made randomly dodgy decisions? Would the 100m final be better if we had a ref eyeballing close finishes? Of course not, we want the winner to be the better competitor on the day and in any close competition the last thing we want is the officials effecting the outcome.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
If we get video refs, wouldn't they be in addition to the existing goalline technology rather than replacing it? I don't think the video ref would look that far back if play had continued for that length of time. And if the video refs were monitoring whether the red team's cross had crossed the goalline at the other end (the end the blue team were defending) before coming back in, wouldn't he/she have seen that the ball had gone out of play and told the ref via the microphone, so that the ref could then bring play back for the goal kick to the blue team?
Sorry if I've misunderstood/am being dim.
So, are you saying that the video ref would monitor the original cross and tell the ref to stop the game? If that's the case, the ref would probably be stopping the attack in order to give the attacking team a goal kick. Awful!
And, if you think the video ref wouldn't look that far back (maybe six seconds), we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand. Also awful!
In my view, video refs are a non-starter.
You've picked a very particular, rare scenario to come to the conclusion that video refs wouldn't work. Neither I nor anyone else is saying that there wouldn't still be controversial incidents, whereby perhaps one wrong decision was missed but another was spotted and corrected. But I come back to the point I made before: video refs will help us get more decisions right than we currently do. That's reason enough to have them.