CVByrne Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 The only argument against this would be people who like refs getting penalty decisions wrong from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 it has always happened CV it is has much a part of football as any part of it the human element is the thing that makes football the undisputed number one world game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Football has changed, Sky changed it. This addition of video evidence for these decisions is required IF we want to improve the decision making in the game. The ONLY reason to stay the way it is is if we want to keep these errors. But arguements that technology would fail or ruin the flow of the game is nonsense. The argument is simply between getting more decisions right or consciously deciding to keep the errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b23avfc Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 I've voted yes. Too much rides on dodgy or plain inaccurate decisions. BUT it would have to be implemented very well. I'm all for the right decision affecting the game, I've been incensed at too many dodgy refereeing decisions. Refs should be graded per match on mistakes made to see if the quality of the refeering is adequate. Too much is at stake. But if its not implemented correctly it could kill a game too. But at least it'd be less corrupt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Football has changed, Sky changed it. This addition of video evidence for these decisions is required IF we want to improve the decision making in the game. The ONLY reason to stay the way it is is if we want to keep these errors. But arguements that technology would fail or ruin the flow of the game is nonsense. The argument is simply between getting more decisions right or consciously deciding to keep the errors. you not answered my point CV football is about human error, most goals are due to errors so do we make the players error free of course not players lose far more games than refs ever do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Football has changed, Sky changed it. This addition of video evidence for these decisions is required IF we want to improve the decision making in the game. The ONLY reason to stay the way it is is if we want to keep these errors. But arguements that technology would fail or ruin the flow of the game is nonsense. The argument is simply between getting more decisions right or consciously deciding to keep the errors. you not answered my point CV football is about human error, most goals are due to errors so do we make the players error free of course not players lose far more games than refs ever do Errors on the part of players. We don't want ref errors. So the biggest ref errors like penalties and red card can be aided by video and no cost to the fluidity of the game. As this simple poll has shown most people would rather the refs get these big decisions right at no cost to the game and the method I outlined does just that. You don't want technology because you like when the ref gets the big decisions wrong from time to time and thats fine. I on the other hand would rather them get it right and cheats like Gerrard and Ronaldo don't get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 2, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2009 well if the video evidence is inconclusive that is worse !! BTW CV what reasons are you for this ? we have always had wrong descions, replays have been around for decades so why are you in favour ? If it's inconclusive then the decision can't be given, whatever it was. Penalty, goal, throw in, corner, whatever. If it's inconclusive then it isn't given, that's how it is in other sports. then we have stopped the game artifically Which may be inevitable. But My method reduces the amount of times it would happen, and dissuades managers from doing it for no reason because they would be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion-heart Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Video Technology should only be used to decide fact. Did it cross the line Yes or No? Are the players 10 yards away? Matters of opinion should not decided by someone elses opinion. Unlike Cricket, Rugby Union and Rugby League, where technology is appropriate and simple to apply, football is not a game of phases. Until someone can give an appropriate way to re-start after an interuption in play, then VT will not be bought in. Example, with the Hull game, piece of cake, either a penalty, goal kick or corner. But what decision could be given if the ball had hit the bar and come back into play and cleared up field to an unmarked Villa player, with Hull GK up for the corner. Any ideas? Difficult, so no you can't introduce VT for open play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted January 2, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2009 My proposal on this has long been: The captain on either side has the ability to request that play be stopped and the ref review the video. Upon the captain making such a request, play shall be stopped at the first reasonable opportunity, unless a goal shall be given for either team before such an opportunity should arise, in which case the request will be nullified. When the ref stops play, the captain making the request is immediately booked for dissent, regardless of the decision made on review. Only matters of fact can be reviewed, e.g. did the ball contact a hand? did the ball cross the line? who last touched the ball before going out? was a player in an offside position? Judgement calls cannot be reviewed (e.g. if the decision was that a player was not offside because they were not in active play is not reviewable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol. Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I don't see how the players can chose what is looked at. Premiership games are filmed by a few cameras, dont know how many but would guess 3 or 4. These feeds are being monitored in real time, communicating to the ref something that he has missed but has been picked up on camera and subsequently beamed around the world to the ref would take seconds. Its giving the ref an extra 3 or 4 pair of much better placed eyes . Viewing a replay or slowing down footage could be designed to work extremely quickly and you could have a 30 seconds limit rule. I'd trial it. Maybe not tell anyone just allow the ref to talk to his " linesmen " by ear piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 did the ball contact a hand not a question of fact the key word is intent and a video can not show this was a player in an offside position sometimes that is not clear at all and not a 'matter of fact' depending on camera angle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted January 2, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2009 Giving an example of my proposal: Attacking team thinks the ball went over the line but no goal is given. The captain communicates this to the ref. Play continues as it would now until one of the following things happens: * the ball goes out of bounds anywhere on the pitch (in which case the video is reviewed) * either keeper holds the ball (results in video review) * a foul is called on either side (results in video review... would probably add a proviso that a foul by the challenging team is a further booking) * a goal is scored (no review) Defending team needs to score a goal without being fouled or otherwise stopping play. Meanwhile, the attacking team is doing everything possible to try to force the stoppage in play (perhaps eventually rising to the level of committing a foul, but more likely kicking the ball out of touch). In the event that the call is reversed, the events between the goal and the stoppage are deemed not to have occurred (except for violent conduct), including resetting of time to the time of the call. If the call stands, then play continues from the stoppage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted January 2, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2009 did the ball contact a hand not a question of fact the key word is intent and a video can not show this As I see it, that question would always be to overrule a call of hand ball: i.e. to show that the ball did not contact the hand. Likewise for the offside, that would likely only allow for a call of offside to be overturned by showing that the player was incontrovertibly onside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 2, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2009 The only argument against this would be people who like refs getting penalty decisions wrong from time to time. I kinda do. I love looking across to a mate after an opposition striker has gone over and whispering conspiratorially "Do you think that might have been..." I love the noise a slightly embarrassed Holte End makes when the ref has clearly missed one for them, and the slight laugh that sometimes goes up once we're confident we've gotten away with it. I love roaring my lungs out in fury at the injustice of Gabby rolled off the ball by Vidic, the intoxication of madness and anger, the sheer joy of letting it all out. These are the moments I'm alive, and they are better than waiting for a telly to say yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol. Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Cant see that working levi, why the booking for dissent as well ? If players could chose to stop play and have a rest or deflate the tempo is would get abused. The game continues, if the guy watching the action on telly see something the ref has missed or got wrong he should be able to tell him. I guess the on pitch ref might start to think they can get away with not giving the big decisions until confirmed in his ear, but I think you'd get a lot more right than wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 spot on Scott, remove the human mistake and you might as well have Andy Gray ref matches Cricket I believe is sufferring from this as nowadays the umps actually have had a lot of authority given away and lets take an example the 'goal' for hull after Barmby's 'challenge' andy Gray I swear changed his mind about it and therefore you would still get humans decieding one way or another if it was a goal or not what next have a panel of five deciding and a majority descion ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 2, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2009 The only argument against this would be people who like refs getting penalty decisions wrong from time to time. Well I have another argument against As soon as this technology becomes available to referees, they wont use it how you think they'll use it. As time goes on, they will use the technology more and more and their own eyes less and less.Nearly every decision will become a video decision. It wont be long before refs start to stop the game because they think there may have been something but they didnt quite see it, right now, if they aren't sure play carries on but with this it'll be stop, stop stop all the time. Refs will soon stop the game just to see if there was an infringement, One moan from a captain and it'll be straight to the video (again more time wasting). Then presumably, they will have to add on time at the end of each half for all the video stoppages and even the rednosedtosser will be amazed at how much time is added on at the end of a game Its the nature of the beast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol. Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 The modern game is too fast for one man to referee. The game has changed refereeing should change with it. The modern game is full of sprinters like Ash & Gabby and counter attacks. The interpretation of a foul is still being done by a human its just that they are in a position to have the same view you will see at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 2, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2009 And also how long will it be before the Phil Browns of this world want something looked at again from a different angle whichever suits his team Its the thin end of a very dangerous wedge for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Bicks, spot on mate we have seen this in rugby and cricket, the games are getting longer and longer due to it intitially in cricket, the onnly referral were lie descions and now they are trialling an appeal system (first one I saw took 3 mins), the next step is for every descion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts