Video Replay anyone ?

por

After seeing what happened in the Portugal v Russia game last night where the keeper was sent off for touching the ball outside the box (I think he was just trying to move his arm out of the way) do you think it is time to introduce video replay ?

In the last few years there has been a spate of questionable penalties give (Robert Pires for Arsenal v Portsmouth last season springs to mind) that could have been resolved by video replay.

I think that it should only be used in penalty box incidents or sending off incidents similar to last night only. The ref would have the discretion on what should go to the replay box. And it would take about the same amount to review as is currently spent by the team that the call is against spends complaining to the ref.

BKtje

i think its highly time that it was introduced.

Big Ears

I think some form of video reffing should be introduced , but what happens when an incident has been looked at (like last night ) , and the video ref says he didnt handle it , how do u restart the game ? maybe a free kick to the team in possesion ?

Pigman II

No way. All these decisions balance themselves out over the course of a tournement/season and only serve to make the game less exciting.

It can also be unfair on the attacking team. Imagine a scenario where TeamA had had TeamB on the back foot for 10 minutes and then the game had to be stopped for 5minutes over a debateable decision. Whichever way the decision goes it'd totally destroy TeamA's momentum and would be as bad as a half time break. There's multiple such scenarios that have to be taken into account like this in a game like football.

Besides part of what makes the game so exciting and true to life is the injustices that can sometimes occur during a 90minutes and I for one wouldn't have it any other way.

BTW I think the Russian goalie was rightly sent off. From where I was watching he definetly touched the ball with his wrist. Whether he was trying to move it out of the way or not is inconsequential.

Third_Echelon

m where I was watching he definetly touched the ball with his wrist. Whether he was trying to move it out of the way or not is inconsequential.

so you dont know the difference between 'hand ball' and 'ball to hand'?

There is a difference and it does matter which type occured. from what I could see, he didn't mean it and the sending off was unjust...

There have been a few diving incidents so far where players have been booked and they haven't dived... denmark vs italy springs to mind where the danish centre forward was yellow carded for falling in the box, even though he got straight back up again and tried to score...

video reffing works well in rugby, which i do admit has more natural breaks in the game, but if it comes to a big decision the right one is usually made... i think it should be introduced to soccer, even on a trial basis to see how it goes, because the standard of reffing is going downhill way to fast for my liking, and if you cant trust a human we have to bring in the video camera....

PHB

What the ****!?
How long do you think this video evidence is going to take?

5 minutes, don't be so damm silly?!

They have it in american football, it takes a total of 10 seconds for the guy to look at the tape and go, well thats blatently obvious, WHICH IT IS.
When you can look at something twice you can easily easily see if it was a foul.
It won't mess up momentum, thats just silly hyperbole!

The things do not balance up over the game, thats just stupid!
They never ever ever ever ever balance up over the game, since you can't have indentical situations.

Example:

Portugals cross which was disallowed in the last WC because the ball apparently went over the line.
It was a game changing decesion which could have been seen on a video replay!


The rule should be:
If the decesion is game changing, including red cards, disallowed goals, penalties, etc, then it should go to a video replay!

Third_Echelon

which comment where you talking about there?

What the ****!?
How long do you think this video evidence is going to take?

5 minutes, don't be so damm silly?!

BaZmO*

Whereas I do agree with Pigman’s sentimental/romantic view of the game, i.e. a big part of soccer is discussing a referee’s decisions after a game, be they good decisions or absolute howlers.
However, I don’t buy the notion that it would hold up the game all that much. Well it definitely wouldn’t hold it up any more than the players do arguing with the ref.
I remember watching the last World Cup (well I think it was the last one), but anyway, they had big screens at many of the venues showing the games and unfortunately for the ref they were also showing action replays of the incidents. That was fine if you were in the crowd and wanted to see a goal again but not for the ref if you were after making a bad decision. Not blaming the ref because at the end of the day if he doesn’t see a foul or infringement committed he can’t act on it.

B.

Pigman II

so you dont know the difference between 'hand ball' and 'ball to hand'?

I meant in THAT particular scenario. Fair enough if for example a defender just inside the box with arms down gets a cross blasted at in his general vacinity and hits his arm could be definetly be called 'ball to hand' but I don't a case of a goalie deliberately running out of his box and generally landing on the ball should be given any leneancy.

5 minutes, don't be so damm silly?!

Eh, Five minutes is just a generalisations like when someone says 'I'll meet you in five minutes'. Point being its an apprecialble amount of time and certainly not the '10 seconds' you are talking about. Rugby is the only sport I've really watched with anything more than a cursory glance that had vid-reffing so I'm open to correction - but you show me any vide-based call made in a rugby match where the decision was made in '10 seconds' and I'll take my hat off to you.

//

That said tho I would be willing to accept vid-reffing if (like it is for late bookings where play is called back) the decision is made at the time but NOT acted upon until there is a natual break in play. That could definetly work.

Big Ears

Originally posted by Pigman II

BTW I think the Russian goalie was rightly sent off. From where I was watching he definetly touched the ball with his wrist. Whether he was trying to move it out of the way or not is inconsequential.

There was one angle behind the Goalie ( a close up ) showed he didnt actually touch the ball .

PHB

Watch american football, it takes 10 seconds!
even if it took 20 seconds, it'd totally be worth it.

I'm so sick of stupid offsides being given and not given randomly, its sutpid, why have the rule there at all if it ain't going to be properly enforced!

If theres a really big game with the club I support the one thing I want most if a good referee, there is nothing worse than losing due to a stupid decision!
And winning is thus less sweet if its because the ref ****ed up

eirebhoy

In rugby it wouldn't take more than 15-20 seconds for a decision to be made. If a player goes down injured it would take longer than that. Also, it would only have to be used a couple of times each match, probably even none.

leeroybrown

Originally posted by: Third_Echelon
the standard of reffing is going downhill way to fast for my likingthe standard of reffing is going downhill way to fast for my liking

I don't think the standard of refereeing is actually getting worse (if anything it's improving) but the speed of the game and the number of the players simulating/cheating is making it a lot harder to be on the spot to make an accurate/correct decision every time. Also, the extra camera footage available calls a lot more decisions into question now.

A video referee could be very useful so long as their role was very exactly defined and it didn't create a position where referees are under pressure to defer every second decision to them.

redspider

I do have some reservations with video decisions. As I said in the recent thread about reffing in the euo2004 tournament, football is a sport that needs more referees, perhaps two more to catch the incidents, such as in US NFL, Aussie Rules, etc. The additional refs change could be applied to the whole sport at all levels, unlike video decisions which can only be applied for big games. Also, how many cameras should be required? If some games have 30 camera angles, others 5, is the quality level of decisions with the videos lower?

I disagree with Pigman II's hypothesis that refereeing errors even up. Yes, they will over time, but over a very long time. In a season over 38 games they dont, and in a tournament such as euro2004 they cant.

I think the current situation is impossibly difficult for ref's. Their decisions can be analysed with slow-mo. Perhaps the refs should have a camera on their foreheads and their view replayed at normal speed for fans to see what they judge on.

I do think its right that vide evidence is used to punish players post the match, and this should be brought in for a whole range of things, such as fouling, feigning fouls, etc.


Some more suggestions:

play football with a stop-clock (eg: 30 mins of play per half!)
That would allow video evidence to take place (1-min) and elliminate any effects of time wasting, etc

secondly, players that go off the filed should be required to
stay off the field according to the discretion of the 4th official
and for a minimum of 5 mins. Unlucky if you get badly injured.
Will stop people faking injury.

electronic systems for ball over the line, and for offside


Problem: how do we get players to stop diving? Its making the sport look silly and Giles is right to harp on about it.

Problem: and players constantly pulling at each other in the box for corners and free-kicks, etc ....

Third_Echelon

Originally posted by leeroybrown
A video referee could be very useful so long as their role was very exactly defined and it didn't create a position where referees are under pressure to defer every second decision to them.

agreed.... if you watch rugby at all, the video ref is only ever used if the ref requests it or he hasn't seen the incident himself...

If brought into soccer it should only be used for major decisions... just like rugby

// edit - finally broke the 500 post mark.. oh yeah :cool:

Guy:Incognito

it would only take a few seconds, most of the time the players are argueing witht the ref anyway so the game is already stopped.

South korea in the last world cup would never have happened cos Italy wouldnt have been cheated.

Spian V Italy in USA 94 when Luis Enrique got his nose broken in the box by Costacurta i think. They didnt get anything for it. Costacurta would have bbeen sent off and Spain would have had a penalty, end reult : different game. The sooner they bring it in, the better.

Plus on offside decisions, all they have to do is let the play go on, and watch the replay, if its offside then call it otherwise it can continue, Lots of goals that are getting disallowed wrongly for offside will get given.Obviously this is only for close calls.

And they should definately use it for dives, book players and send them off.

Guy:Incognito

Originally posted by redspider


Problem: how do we get players to stop diving?

By booking and banning them after games and analysing video evidence, like the way they do with bad tackles and recinding red cards. The totti spitting incident is a good example of this. Maybe if players know they will be pulled up on it after games, they wont be so quick to dive.

por

Originally posted by PHB


Example:

Portugals cross which was disallowed in the last WC because the ball apparently went over the line.
It was a game changing decesion which could have been seen on a video replay!
B]

It was actually Spain v South Korea. It does bring up the tricky question about the scope of video replay though.
Should managers be allowed to challenge game changing decisions by calling for a video replay, as above, or should it just be used by the ref to 'help' him make a decision, like a penalty, dive, had ball in the box etc.

I believe that only the ref should be able to request it and only for penalty area decisions.

I also think the idea of 2 refs is not a bad one either.

Guy:Incognito

Originally posted by por
It was actually Spain v South Korea. It does bring up the tricky question about the scope of video replay though.
Should managers be allowed to challenge game changing decisions by calling for a video replay, as above, or should it just be used by the ref to 'help' him make a decision, like a penalty, dive, had ball in the box etc.

I believe that only the ref should be able to request it and only for penalty area decisions.

I also think the idea of 2 refs is not a bad one either.

the game should continue as normal, close decisions should be let go and play continue, a 4th or 5th official should be constantly watching back through these close decisions and radio the ref to stop play if need b

por

Originally posted by Stekelly
the game should continue as normal, close decisions should be let go and play continue, a 4th or 5th official should be constantly watching back through these close decisions and radio the ref to stop play if need b

That would not work, lets say a man goes down in the box, should be a penalty but the ref waves it on, then 30sec, 1min later the 5th official tells him to stop play and give a penalty.

It should only be used as an tool for the ref to call on to help him make a penalty box decision he did not see properly or was unsure about,

Guy:Incognito

Originally posted by por
That would not work, lets say a man goes down in the box, should be a penalty but the ref waves it on, then 30sec, 1min later the 5th official tells him to stop play and give a penalty.

It should only be used as an tool for the ref to call on to help him make a penalty box decision he did not see properly or was unsure about,

I meant it really for things list offside, penalty appeals usually take a min r two anyway with players iving out to the ref etc. It cant be used in that way for every decision but if it helps clear up the majority, then its a good thing

Washout

Each manager should be allowed three lives for video evidence.

what i mean is if a team disputes a decision then the team captain or manager can call for a video replay but each team is only allowed a maximum of three.

I think managers would use it if some1 scored a goal from an offside position .....penalty disputes and to check if the ball crossed the line or not.

otherwise to fully implement video evidence would be like crazy cause everyone would be disputing every decision

por

Originally posted by Washout
Each manager should be allowed three lives for video evidence.

what i mean is if a team disputes a decision then the team captain or manager can call for a video replay but each team is only allowed a maximum of three.

I think managers would use it if some1 scored a goal from an offside position .....penalty disputes and to check if the ball crossed the line or not.

otherwise to fully implement video evidence would be like crazy cause everyone would be disputing every decision

That is similar to the NFL in the States, each team has 2 'challenges' per half, however if they make a challenge and it fails (i.e.decision not overturned) then they loose 1 of the 3 time-out they have per half.
This makes teams think about what decision are worth challenging

therecklessone

Originally posted by por


I think that it should only be used in penalty box incidents or sending off incidents similar to last night only. The ref would have the discretion on what should go to the replay box.

But the ref seemed fairly certain it was handball last night. What if he decided not to use the video ref in that case?

Again you're left with a tough decision to make. Delay the match in any way and you give breathing space to the defending team and destroy the momentum of the attackers. Why else do you think teams that are trying to hang on to a result do their best to delay and time-waste? It has an effect.

I'd be more inclined to use more match officials. Maybe two more linesmen and a second referee? Or how about GAA style umpires?

Guy:Incognito

Originally posted by therecklessone
But the ref seemed fairly certain it was handball last night. What if he decided not to use the video ref in that case?

I dont think it should be a case of him asking. the video ref should automatically check it and radio him to tell him. the video ref should spend the 90 mins going over the close decisions, not sitting there and waiting to be asked to check something.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Stekelly
I dont think it should be a case of him asking. the video ref should automatically check it and radio him to tell him. the video ref should spend the 90 mins going over the close decisions, not sitting there and waiting to be asked to check something.

Hows that gonna work? Ref blows for free-kick, convinced it was handball. Does he red card the keeper straight away, or wait for possible intervention of video ref? What if video ref needs to look at a few angles of the incident? Even a 15/20 second delay will upset the momentum.

It should be the referees decision to bring in the video ref when he is unsure of a decision, you may as well do away with an on-field official if his decision can be over-ruled at any stage.

I still think it should be more officials on pitch anyway.

Guy:Incognito

Originally posted by therecklessone
Hows that gonna work? Ref blows for free-kick, convinced it was handball. Does he red card the keeper straight away, or wait for possible intervention of video ref? What if video ref needs to look at a few angles of the incident? Even a 15/20 second delay will upset the momentum.

It should be the referees decision to bring in the video ref when he is unsure of a decision, you may as well do away with an on-field official if his decision can be over-ruled at any stage.

I still think it should be more officials on pitch anyway.

If its a clear handball/incidentthen fine but if theres a chance hes wrong then a 10 - 15 second delay in a game thats already stopped wont hurt. Anyway it took a while for the red card and the keeper to leave the field before the game got going again yesterday. Its a serious decision and one that will change the game hugely so a few seconds of a wait is ok.

mike65

If its works in Rugby it'll work in football. The problem is that FIFA is run by a corrupt old man.

Mike.

hoolio

i'd go for something similar to the NFL but with a twist.Say there was a suspected hand-ball in the box.The manager would immediately say to an offical that he wanted to contest the decision.the official would relay that to a linesman via an earpiece,the linesman would then flag to stop the play.The tapes would then be checked,if the manager was right in his appeal the decision would be given,but if the manager was wrong he would have to take one player off for say 5 minutes.That would prevent appeals on every second play and stop tactical appeals (ie appealing just because they see the oppositon might be on the counter attack)

eirebhoy

Originally posted by mike65
If its works in Rugby it'll work in football. The problem is that FIFA is run by a corrupt old man.

Would it be possible for UEFA or even the FA to bring it in?

hullaballoo

I think Drogba's handball and Shaun Wright-Phillips dive where Elliot was sent off against Newcastle there on Wednesday are perfect examples of where video evidence should be used in soccer.

PS Sorry for dragging up an old thread, but there are a couple of these threads already, so I didn't want to start a new one!

blu_sonic

it makes perfect sence to use it, anything that makes the sport better can only be good

Mark

The "balances out over a season" argument makes no rational sense whatsoever. As if there was some higher order behind all the decisions tweaking this and that so the numbers are equal. Take Spurs last season for example, Pedro Mendes' 'goal' against Man Utd was denied, 3 points denied that kept them out of Europe. Am I to assume that Utd going out of Europe early this season was some footballing gods divine retribution?

The only rationale I can find behind the Balance Out theory is if its proponents assuime referees are watching this sort of thing on Match of the Day and think "Right, I better do them in a game to even it out". Along with the host of examples above, there's no divine force that means all team are getting their "share" of good luck and bad. The suggestion itself is the very opposite of luck, ie randomness. It's basic maths and a load of horseshít to suggest otherwise.

I tihnk once video replays are introduced, the arguments against it will be seen as reactions against change more than anything else.

blu_sonic

the only argument i can think in favour is that these mistakes ad to the unpredicability of football.

Dr Galen

i may stand corrected here, but doesn't the video ref in rugby, playback and watch anything dodgey he see's. thats why you get the decisions so quickly. he is waiting for the ref to call up to him, has a quick final look and radios down the decision. the video ref's though would have to expeienced officials though, and the standard overall of reffing would have to improve to make it workable