Should video refs be brought into soccer

Gelio

Tauren wrote: »

I know - i almost stopped supporting them

He he I sense a slag at me:D

Mitch Connor

ajeffares wrote: »

He he I sense a slag at me:D

only in good humour though.

Gelio

Tauren wrote: »

only in good humour though.

Of course

Gelio

Tauren wrote: »

Yes - team should get two 'calls' per game, for goal issues - be it for a goal disallowed for offside or for contention on whether the ball crossed the line. That is how i would go.

I'd give 3 calls because they could be used at either end of the pitch

eagle eye

I think its clear that most people would favour some sort of video system. I personally think that you should get one defensive and one offensive video challenge per game. If you challenge and are wrong you lose that challenge but if you are right then you hold to the challenge and are allowed use it again during the game. Sort of similar to the NFL system. It would ensure that there are very few if any unnecessary video replays.

So for me one to challenge a goal against you.
And one to challenge a disallowed goal you scored.

There would have to be rules regarding their use also, such as you have to give a specific reason why you are challenging. If someone challenges a goal where they believe the ball crossed the line and it turns out that their player was fouled in the box on the way through then they don't get a penalty because the ball did not cross the line as you did not challenge this.
If the system came into being then the referee should also be able to review a play as well if he missed something as is informed afterwards by one of his officials.
Similarly with a goal scored against you, where you believe that the ball did not cross the line and it turns out the that player who scored used his hand. The goal still counts as that is not what you challenged.

Gelio

eagle eye wrote: »

I think its clear that most people would favour some sort of video system. I personally think that you should get one defensive and one offensive video challenge per game. If you challenge and are wrong you lose that challenge but if you are right then you hold to the challenge and are allowed use it again during the game. Sort of similar to the NFL system. It would ensure that there are very few if any unnecessary video replays.

So for me one to challenge a goal against you.
And one to challenge a disallowed goal you scored.

There would have to be rules regarding their use also, such as you have to give a specific reason why you are challenging. If someone challenges a goal where they believe the ball crossed the line and it turns out that their player was fouled in the box on the way through then they don't get a penalty because the ball did not cross the line as you did not challenge this.
If the system came into being then the referee should also be able to review a play as well if he missed something as is informed afterwards by one of his officials.
Similarly with a goal scored against you, where you believe that the ball did not cross the line and it turns out the that player who scored used his hand. The goal still counts as that is not what you challenged.

Thats it now we're talkin, who would have the final say on if the challenge is right or not. The Ref would hardly change his descision :mad:

eagle eye

ajeffares wrote: »

Thats it now we're talkin, who would have the final say on if the challenge is right or not. The Ref would hardly change his descision :mad:

There would have to be an independent video referee who makes these decisions.

Mitch Connor

My gripe with Video reffing would be that once it was brough in for goal decisions, how long would it be before people wanted penalty decisions (was it a dive? did he handle it?) and then there would be a clamour for other avenues of video reffing to0.

I would like it introduced for specific goal related incidents, but i would be fearful of it being a 'slippery slope.

LuckyLloyd

IT'S LONG OVERDUE!!

Football is a joke. The technology is there to never have an incorrect call made of whether the ball has crossed the line into the goal or not. And it isn't used. WHY THE **** NOT?? :mad:

Decisions like that which can be made 100% accurate (without impinging upon the speed of the game whatsoever) can cost clubs millions and millions and pounds when left open to the visual judgment of referees and linesmen as they currently are. "Ah but shur, it's all part of the game loike!"

Why goaline technology hasn't been introduced is beyond me. And so ****ing what if you can't bring it in at every level. The money is biggest at the top of the game and where the decisions cost the most it can be introduced in a standardized manner. In semi - pro or amateur leagues the decisions don't mean as much so just because it couldn't be used there isn't a valid argument to preventing it's introduction at professional and international level.

---

Now, as for other decisions - talk of slowing the game is bollocks. Nothing happens in football for long stretches - i.e. the passages of play between chances or incidents. In that respect the game is not that different to American sports that have timeouts and pauses between plays. Games where the pace is stepped up to the max and it is end to end for 90 mins are very few and far between.

In my opinion, soccer should take it's lead from Rugby and have a video ref or video panel working off available television cameras. How would it work?

- Each team gets one to three challenges;
- Just like the linesmen can press a button to attract the attention of refs both managers also are given this abillity;
- Ref stops play assuming that the team pressing the button has not used up all available challenges;
- Once the manager presses the button to challenge something he must specify to the ref what he wants reviewed;
- It goes upstairs and if the challenging team was right (i.e. they claimed they should have had a penalty and were correct) the initial decision is overruled and play is brought back to that point;
- If the challenging team is wrong (i.e. their player dived) play restarts with a freekick to the non - challenging team;

Obviously, it would be incumbent upon a manager to challenge something within 10 seconds of the play happening (this could be checked by the video ref).

Would it slow the game down a couple of times? Yes. Would it destroy the game? NO CHANCE. And would it make games fairer? YES.

Refs are only human. We can help them. Lets do it yesterday ffs. :mad:

LuckyLloyd

Also, some people seem to have trouble with the idea of (ZOMG!) retroactively correcting an incorrect decision. Why not? If a decision was made that was wrong why should it be allowed to stand? Particularly if it's on camera there as clear as day that the wrong decision was made. Why would stopping play and going back to make things right be such a problem? Tell me.

Gelio

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

IT'S LONG OVERDUE!!

Football is a joke. The technology is there to never have an incorrect call made of whether the ball has crossed the line into the goal or not. And it isn't used. WHY THE **** NOT?? :mad:

Decisions like that which can be made 100% accurate (without impinging upon the speed of the game whatsoever) can cost clubs millions and millions and pounds when left open to the visual judgment of referees and linesmen as they currently are. "Ah but shur, it's all part of the game loike!"

Why goaline technology hasn't been introduced is beyond me. And so ****ing what if you can't bring it in at every level. The money is biggest at the top of the game and where the decisions cost the most it can be introduced in a standardized manner. In semi - pro or amateur leagues the decisions don't mean as much so just because it couldn't be used there isn't a valid argument to preventing it's introduction at professional and international level.

---

Now, as for other decisions - talk of slowing the game is bollocks. Nothing happens in football for long stretches - i.e. the passages of play between chances or incidents. In that respect the game is not that different to American sports that have timeouts and pauses between plays. Games where the pace is stepped up to the max and it is end to end for 90 mins are very few and far between.

In my opinion, soccer should take it's lead from Rugby and have a video ref or video panel working off available television cameras. How would it work?

- Each team gets one to three challenges;
- Just like the linesmen can press a button to attract the attention of refs both managers also are given this abillity;
- Ref stops play assuming that the team pressing the button has not used up all available challenges;
- Once the manager presses the button to challenge something he must specify to the ref what he wants reviewed;
- It goes upstairs and if the challenging team was right (i.e. they claimed they should have had a penalty and were correct) the initial decision is overruled and play is brought back to that point;
- If the challenging team is wrong (i.e. their player dived) play restarts with a freekick to the non - challenging team;

Obviously, it would be incumbent upon a manager to challenge something within 10 seconds of the play happening (this could be checked by the video ref).

Would it slow the game down a couple of times? Yes. Would it destroy the game? NO CHANCE. And would it make games fairer? YES.

Refs are only human. We can help them. Lets do it yesterday ffs. :mad:

I'm with you 100%

stovelid

Yes but probably only for serious situations. For example, a goal-over-line dispute that costs a match, or a semi-final sending off.

I would also use it to detect and punish cheating, faking injury etc.

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

IT'S LONG OVERDUE!!

Football is a joke. The technology is there to never have an incorrect call made of whether the ball has crossed the line into the goal or not. And it isn't used. WHY THE **** NOT?? :mad:
Decisions like that which can be made 100% accurate (without impinging upon the speed of the game whatsoever) ....

The technology definitely isn't there yet for ball crossing the line decisions. The error margin with something like Hawkeye is still quite large. I think its estimated at 4mm on a tennis court and it has failed totally at lbw decisions in cricket. Its still more accurate than the naked eye but to say it would 'never have an incorrect call' is way off.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

can cost clubs millions and millions and pounds when left open to the visual judgment of referees and linesmen as they currently are. "Ah but shur, it's all part of the game loike!"

It part of what makes football great, I play under basically the exact same set of rules/conditions in my Sunday pub team as do the stars of the top leagues. Its what makes it The People Game.
As for costing clubs millions, you as a poker player should know that this is not true, its variance and it balances out to zero in the long run.

Gelio

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

it balances out to zero in the long run.

Not always

LuckyLloyd

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The technology definitely isn't there yet for ball crossing the line decisions. The error margin with something like Hawkeye is still quite large. I think its estimated at 4mm on a tennis court and it has failed totally at lbw decisions in cricket. Its still more accurate than the naked eye but to say it would 'never have an incorrect call' is way off.


It part of what makes football great, I play under basically the exact same set of rules/conditions in my Sunday pub team as do the stars of the top leagues. Its what makes it The People Game.
As for costing clubs millions, you as a poker player should know that this is not true, its variance and it balances out to zero in the long run.

I'm not sure you are correct with the first part but, in any case, "it is still more accurate than the naked eye" is the key.

And go away with the "people's game" ****. The rules might nominally be the same - but Sunday League football is a mile away from what is played in the premiership. My local theater did Chicago once - wasn't the same as seeing it on Broadway.

And the last part is very, very wrong - and you should see why as a poker player. They award trophies and relegate clubs after 38 games - a sample size within which bad decisions and luck will definitely not even out. It takes years for footballing variance to even out - by which time managers get sacked; players retire or move on; clubs see their financial situation massively changed.

If bad decisions can be lessened as a deciding factor in games I'm not sure why one would want to keep them there. If we can make end results a fairer reflection of who is the better team on average why aren't we doing it?

ITT-Pat

very tired at the moment and haven't read most of the thread, but as far as goal-line decisions are concerned i cant see why they dont have officials standing at/around the goal to see if the ball has crossed the line, similiar to GAA

DSB

ITT-Pat wrote: »

very tired at the moment and haven't read most of the thread, but as far as goal-line decisions are concerned i cant see why they dont have officials standing at/around the goal to see if the ball has crossed the line, similiar to GAA

Because its actually pretty rare in the grand scheme of things for there to be a query as to whether the ball has crossed the line, whereas in GAA theres a great big area over the bar where the ball is being hit on a regular basis from a number of different angles and on many occasions of watching on TV (I don't actually like GAA much so I wouldn't watch in person) I've been unable to tell whether its gone wide or over the bar.

Gelio

ITT-Pat wrote: »

very tired at the moment and haven't read most of the thread, but as far as goal-line decisions are concerned i cant see why they dont have officials standing at/around the goal to see if the ball has crossed the line, similiar to GAA

Why would you do that? You would have to pay the wages of 4 umpires then when they would only be needed onece or twice

ITT-Pat

DSB wrote: »

Because its actually pretty rare in the grand scheme of things for there to be a query as to whether the ball has crossed the line, whereas in GAA theres a great big area over the bar where the ball is being hit on a regular basis from a number of different angles and on many occasions of watching on TV (I don't actually like GAA much so I wouldn't watch in person) I've been unable to tell whether its gone wide or over the bar.

Thats true, but it can only be a benefit if you have an official standing behind the goal in order to get these decisions right, especially since people are so against hawkeye etc.

ajeffares wrote: »

Why would you do that? You would have to pay the wages of 4 umpires then when they would only be needed onece or twice

It would only need to 2 extra umpires and since they're willing to pay the wage of a 4th official to hold up the board and listen to manager complaints, I doubt they cant afford an improvement in goal-line decisions

LuckyLloyd

GAA umpires have made a litany of bad calls throughout the years. Humans = human error.

Gelio

So what your saying is we have 2 options
1 Umpires on the goal line, that can and do make mistakes (often)
2 Goal line technology which is correct 99.9% of the time

And you would choose option 1 because . . .

evad_lhorg

goal line technology should be brought in but only when the game has been stopped. ie when Liverpool had that goal given against Chelsea in the semis of the champions league or like last night when Rooney was deemed offside but the replay showed he was clearly on and the ball was already in the back of the net.

ITT-Pat

ajeffares wrote: »

So what your saying is we have 2 options
1 Umpires on the goal line, that can and do make mistakes (often)
2 Goal line technology which is correct 99.9% of the time

And you would choose option 1 because . . .

No I'd prefer a camera on each post and the crossbar, with an official somewhere constantly watching the screen, but anytime FIFA have ever commented on the subject the jist of their response has been that they dont want to use technology, so to me umpires seems like a decent compromise

Gelio

ITT-Pat wrote: »

No I'd prefer a camera on each post and the crossbar, with an official somewhere constantly watching the screen, but anytime FIFA have ever commented on the subject the jist of their response has been that they dont want to use technology, so to me umpires seems like a decent compromise

Well the fans seem to want it according to the poll

ITT-Pat

well yeah but sometimes you'd have to wonder if FIFA were ever fans of football;)

Gelio

ITT-Pat wrote: »

well yeah but sometimes you'd have to wonder if FIFA were ever fans of football;)

All they are interested in is the money. If only they could see this would bring in more money