leviramsey Posted January 2, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2009 Cant see that working levi, why the booking for dissent as well ? The booking imposes a cost on challenging the call, which will limit spurious challenges. By having that cost to consider, players will have to determine what the potential gain from having a call overruled and the chances of it being overruled; if the expected benefit of making the challenge outweighs the cost of the booking then it's an intelligent challenge to make. To my mind, a booking for dissent is a better price than, say, removing a substitution, if only because it's far more likely to make the challenger think twice before using it. I don't want to see the sport become bogged down in challenges, but there are cases where important games end with the improper result due to the lack of ability to challenge. This plan strives to limit the challenges to those few very important decisions without deciding a priori what constitutes such a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol. Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I'm not for stopping a game to have a look at anything I'm up for another referee co-refereeing. The guy on pitch has the whistle and will only blow if he's told he has missed something. Those against, how do you feel about a 2nd referee on the pitch one for each half ? I'd say its worse than my outline as you'd have two whistles. And anyway the 4th official does bollox all at the moment other than stop the managers moving about the touchline and lifting a board up to tell you which player is going off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YLN Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 The game is fine for **** sake Leave it be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 2nd refs would be awful they would referee each half differently no one would know where they were the amount we have now is fine, Linesmen should do more to help as for the 4th offcial I think they are now helpig teh ref make on the pitch calls (no TV used) they are allowed to, say if the ref misses something say a punch behind the referee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol. Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Sorry booking the captain and possible sending him off ! because he knows a ball crossed the line and it did ! seems a bit unfair. and allowing for a player to chose a booking to stop the game is not workable IMO The players or mangers have nothing to do with it. The Video Ref is none contactable. Its a one way street of communication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 2, 2009 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 I agree, but the refs are marked by external assesers so they would be marked down for stopping the game so much so it wouldn't become as bad as you say. Also Video evidence can only be used for Penalty decisions and red card incidents so how many of them do you have in a game? I just want those big decisions to be correct. The rest of the game remains untouched. I really can't see the downside. Since the upside is big decisions are called correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 2nd refs would be awful they would referee each half differently no one would know where they were the amount we have now is fine, Linesmen should do more to help as for the 4th offcial I think they are now helpig teh ref make on the pitch calls (no TV used) they are allowed to, say if the ref misses something say a punch behind the referee What about 2 extra officials behind the goals. Who are only there to help on penalty decisions or balls crossing the line? They can't flag for offences just help a ref make the correct decision if asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briggaman Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I don't know if anyone has said this. Yet, I would like to see an American Football style rule implemented. Thus allowing a manager to challenge the decision. Yet, I would only allow one challenge per match for each manager, meaning it would not be slowed down much at all. This would mean that it would fall on the manager and his staff to decide when to use that challenge, such as for big moments (eg penalty being given, or player sent off). Just an idea and I think it could really work. 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 I agree, but the refs are marked by external assesers so they would be marked down for stopping the game so much so it wouldn't become as bad as you say. Also Video evidence can only be used for Penalty decisions and red card incidents so how many of them do you have in a game? I just want those big decisions to be correct. The rest of the game remains untouched. I really can't see the downside. Since the upside is big decisions are called correctly. So what happens if the video evidence is called for and its a foul but is deemed to be outside the penalty area? Games still been stopped do they use the evidence or not? To not use it makes them look daft and as soon as they do use it, it gets used everywhere because otherwise it just wouldn't be fair not to Why would you need video evidence for red cards? They are usually pretty blatent or does that include every possible foul by every player already booked Why will the decisions be correct with video evidence? There are still Villa fans and commentators who have watched the Barmby incident and think it wasn't a foul, they've watched it many times and still think it wasn't a foul. If they still think that wasn't a foul from video evidence what makes you think the correct decisions will be made all the time (and quickly for that matter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 So what happens if the video evidence is called for and its a foul but is deemed to be outside the penalty area? Games still been stopped do they use the evidence or not? To not use it makes them look daft and as soon as they do use it, it gets used everywhere because otherwise it just wouldn't be fair not to Why would you need video evidence for red cards? They are usually pretty blatent or does that include every possible foul by every player already booked Why will the decisions be correct with video evidence? There are still Villa fans and commentators who have watched the Barmby incident and think it wasn't a foul, they've watched it many times and still think it wasn't a foul. If they still think that wasn't a foul from video evidence what makes you think the correct decisions will be made all the time (and quickly for that matter) I don't believe that. If you use it only for Penalty decisions, you don't have to use it for every other decision. Thats like saying goal line technology would be implemented for balls going out of play. I'm sure people would be happy to draw the line at using Video evidence only to confirm match changing decisions like penalties. Red cards could just be for straight reds. Or all video evidence could be at the request of the Ref only. So if the ref wants to confirm his decision he asks the video ref. Also if the decision is made wrong by video evidence or if you could make an argument for either side that's a consequence of football. But it'll certainly improve the amound of big decisions called correctly. The other option is taking a bit from Levs idea. Captains have two chances per game to challenge the refs decision and only then is a video ref to call it. This would save Refs from giving appaling decisions against teams. Captains who know the ref has got it wrong can let the video ref decide. The limit of two challenges means captains will not waste the refs time with small incidents in case he's run out of challenges to save a big decision late in the game. As for an argument that it'll slow down the game, people faking injury slows down games alot more. Big arguments over bad decisions will slow a game more also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol. Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 O'Neill calls for video technology "I don't see why they can't do it. Is the argument because every single game is not televised? But I don't know why goal-line technology is not brought in to determine whether or not it is a goal or whether someone has committed a foul on the line. "Why is there a reluctance to bring it in? I don't know. "As for consulting with the fourth official, we are not talking about the referee's right to give a penalty or to make the decisions on the field "But I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to help each other with decisions because they are in communication." FOX Pretty much the commonsense approach I was on about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 No, what would we have 15 page debates about then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol. Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 sadomasochism should not get in the way of a return of the beautiful game, just imagine players having respect for the decisions made on the pitch. less diving and ref conning Less teams and fans being cheated out of glory because the ref just happened to be looking at something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Thats why we should bring in technology, the benefits far out weight the negatives. Which are very minimal if the ref is still the only one who stops the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts