kurtsimonw Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Video technoglogy simply doesn't work, in my opinion. I don't watch cricket or rugby so I can't say what goes on there, but after watching the NFL for quite a few years now, it just creates more frustration. The amount of times they clearly get it wrong, even with the help of video replay is astonishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 19, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted November 19, 2009 Video technoglogy simply doesn't work, in my opinion. I don't watch cricket or rugby so I can't say what goes on there, but after watching the NFL for quite a few years now, it just creates more frustration. The amount of times they clearly get it wrong, even with the help of video replay is astonishing. That is a concern. It does work for Rugby. Their philosphy is if it goes tto the tv ref and he can't definitely say it's a try (or whatever) then it doesn't stand. But my concern is say last night, for example. Ok it's pretty clear the handball was deliberate. but say Henry's hand was more at hs side and the ball just bounced off it. The situation would be the same but the question of intention is right up in the air. The video ref would still be left with a decision as to whether it was deliberate or not. Whatever decision he made there would be disagreements. Football isn't as clear cut as rugby, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomb2233 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I say yes for the big leagues and big games where it really matters. Conference and below stay the same simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 massive yes from me. we need to do more to counter cheating, and/or refereeing ineptitude/mishaps etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Football isn't as clear cut as rugby, in my opinion. Yep, and that's a problem. I think any video replay system will be taken advantage of regardless how you do it. Let's say United or Liverpool have a big goal scored past them, they will review it and find something, anything, in the build upto the goal that they can possibly disallow it for. It'd just be another measure to help the bigger teams, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ricardomeister Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Yes, I think we should adopt an NFL style challenge system where each team is allowed one challenge per game. Yes, the Irish were unlucky with that decision....although they are hardly the first team to suffer in that way....but to say it robbed the Irish of a place in the World Cup Finals is quite obviously incorrect. It merely robbed them of a penalty shoot out which could have gone either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 My one concern is that the game will go the way of Rugby Union and the referee will be afraid to give anything without going to the video to confirm it. "Its a throw in to France, no, wait a minute, the referee is going to the video before he awards it.." Nah, you limit the amount of challenges to 1 each half, and you prohibit willy nilly usage of them, by limiting them to disputed goals, penalties, and dismissals. Thin end of the wedge though. Once it is in then the referee will get criticised for every tiny little decision. Okay, I was being a bit facetious with the throw in example, but we will reach a point where referees are scared to make any decision without going to the video because they know they will be ripped to pieces by media like Sky Sports News and Talksport if they dont. I wonder how many goals from corners and free kicks will be appealed because of holding and shirt pulling which has been part and parcel of the game since about, oo, 1874? Giving the team captain some kind of right to appeal is an interesting angle. It actually gives the captain something to do in a match once the coin toss has taken place I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.I.C.O. Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Despite the crap call last night for the Henry handball I still think all these replays will ruin the sport, but I can see this coming in the future anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artetasgirl Posted November 19, 2009 Visiting Supporter Share Posted November 19, 2009 Not for me. Additional Assistant Referees (as they are called) though, don't see nothing wrong with them really. Got us a corner we scored from when noone else had a clue Oh and they would of been in prime position to see the hand ball from last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It could never work and would ruin the game. For the incident last night, the game had stopped so it 'could' have been used but for the other 99% of incidents I'm guessing it wouldn't. For example a shot that the attacking team thought had crossed the line but is still in play, the game would have to be stopped to check or if it needed to be checked in a natural break teams would start hoofing the ball out of play to see the replay. If the game was stopped how is it re-started and from where? The same for penalty appeals. I think any idea that includes the words 'like they do in ' is a bad idea, the beauty of football is that it flows. referrals, stoppages, teams kicking the ball out to see replays etc will all kill the game. If the powers that be want to clamp down on cheating then they need to punish the cheats retrospectively and firmly. This is the only way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 19, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted November 19, 2009 I agree with you Rev about the passing of the buck by referees. In rugby, the ref's have no responsibility. Every try pretty much goes to a video decision, especially in League. If anything was put in place, the referee's should have to make a decision, which can then be challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 IMO it would ruin the game, I think controversy in a game is good as it gives everyone something to discuss, deny blatantly to the cameras that they never saw it (managers). its horrid when it happens to your team but its swings and roundabouts. Certain decisions are what makes some games memorable. I think if a bad decision is made the officials should maybe have to explain themselves but at the end of the day thats life and the rules. You have to just lump it and they shouldnt ever be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 IMO it would ruin the game, I think controversy in a game is good as it gives everyone something to discuss, deny blatantly to the cameras that they never saw it (managers). its horrid when it happens to your team but its swings and roundabouts. Certain decisions are what makes some games memorable. I think if a bad decision is made the officials should maybe have to explain themselves but at the end of the day thats life and the rules. Apart from the swings and roundabouts most of this makes sense. Swings and roundabouts bit is nonsense - when are Ireland going to be on the back of a refereeing error that sends them to a major finals. You have to just lump it and they shouldnt ever be changed. Not true. It is still possible to punish the cheats after the game. It might not mean that the right result is achieved, ie you are not going back revising results, but it might have a bizarre side effect of reducing cheating thus reducing the requirement for video technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 19, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted November 19, 2009 Leave it exactly as it is. Like chrissmith I agree that the controversy and human element is all part of the game, it's what you argue with your mate in the pub about, it's what drives you mad in a game and it's what makes the calls that go your way all the sweeter. You'd clinicalise the game and would kill a fair amount of it's spirit if you introduced the video evidence stuff. Plus I've never seen a suggested implementation of it I've liked. You can't limit the number of challenges to the decision of the ref because that just makes it arbitrary, if you've used your alotted number of challenges what happens if another Henry like massive decision goes against you? You're back where you started. And if you had unlimited ones, you'd have the thing being used every 2 minutes. The only way I can see it working would be to have the video ref be the be all and end all of all decisions, someone would have to monitor the game and would have to very quickly using the TV angles get an over ruling to the ref, the ref on the pitch more or less being superceded. And even that wouldn't quite work because more often than not it takes a good few seconds to get the right angle reply of the game up by which team the games still going and the other team could be at the other end of the pitch. And you'd still have killed off a part of the game that we may not like but is part of it. So no thanks, leave the game alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troglodyte Posted November 19, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted November 19, 2009 1. Team A's player blocks a goal on the goalline with his hand, referee doesn't see it 2. Play goes on for 3 more minutes without stoppage 3. Team A scores a fantastic goal 4. Team B challenges the incident that happened 3 minutes ago What then? Team A's goal doesn't count and team B gets a penalty? What happens to the 3 minutes that was played but doesn't count? It'd be rubbish IMO. This is one reason why it's a no from me, as well as others that have been mentioned. I think (harsher) retrospective punishment using video evidence could be a good thing though. Although then take a situation like last night, in which Henry apparently told the referee that he'd handballed it but the ref still stuck with his decision. Do you then dish out a ban to Henry? Yes he could have put it out after the handball, but I don't think it would be the natural reaction of a player (and Doyle pretty much said so himself, saying an Irish player would/could have done the same) to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Although then take a situation like last night, in which Henry apparently told the referee that he'd handballed it but the ref still stuck with his decision. Eh? Are we talking in the hypothetical here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaEire Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Definite yes. But I wouldn't want to see it overdone either. It should only be used to challenge goal/penalty incidents IMO. Ireland had a try disallowed against Australia last Sunday on the back of video evidence and it makes decisions much easier to take. Without video evidence I feel confident that the try would have been given. I am losing my love for the game because it seems that there is some clanger made by refs every week now and it's no good saying that these things even themselves out over a season and just accepting it. The amount of money we spend as fans supporting our teams we deserve better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Although then take a situation like last night, in which Henry apparently told the referee that he'd handballed it but the ref still stuck with his decision. Eh? Are we talking in the hypothetical here? According to Mr Henry this morning, he told the ref he had handballed in the lead up to the goal and the ref told him that he is not the referee and should go away. Could just be Mr Henry trying to save his reputation and Gillette deals in the aftermath though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Interesting proposal on the radio this morning, adopt the cricket approach and ask the player. So France score, Ireland complain. Ref asks the hand of frog if he used his hand, HoF says no. After the game, video is reviewed and shows that he did indeed. Player is then hit with two bans, one for the original offence and one for deceiving the ref. The second ban should be of the 'football wide' variety - ie banned from all football, club country, league cup, chumps league etc and be punitive. So in last night's case, if HoF was offered the chance to own up and refused it, and the resultant error was of such magnitude, 8 month ban from all football - he stops one team going to the WC - he gets banned from the tournament as well. Might add a touch of honesty to the game without having to stop for video. Definitely an interesting approach and I quite like it. Certainly against the whole 'challenge' mentality, though - as I am with cricket. I'm not sure we need to look for ways to encourage players and managers to question the officials even more. If officials choose to use video evidence then that is a slightly different kettle of bananas but I would probably only go with it for line decisions if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 19, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted November 19, 2009 Although then take a situation like last night, in which Henry apparently told the referee that he'd handballed it but the ref still stuck with his decision. Eh? Are we talking in the hypothetical here? According to Mr Henry this morning, he told the ref he had handballed in the lead up to the goal and the ref told him that he is not the referee and should go away. Could just be Mr Henry trying to save his reputation and Gillette deals in the aftermath though... Unless he shouted it from the touchline where he was celebrating, I'm entitled not to believe him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts