TV technology?

Johnny Utah

Last night, in the Confederation's Cup Final, Brazil scored a perfectly good goal, but it wasn't given because the referee didn't see it. Now, granted the Confederations Cup is only a Mickey Mouse tournament in the grand scheme of things, but what if this mistake had happened in the World Cup final or the Champions League final?

I propose that it is now time to use TV technology, in a similar manner to rugby, whereby the fourth official could instantly use video evidence to adjudicate upon critical decisions during the game, such as where the ball may have crossed the line, or where a player has been seriously injured off the ball unbeknownst to the referee, maybe even an eye-gouging. Of course, the fourth official wouldn't be called upon for the more trivial decisions, such as yellow cards, free kicks etc so it shouldn't interrupt the flow of the game. The fourth official may only have to be called upon once in a game; the example last night being to intervene and declare that Brazil scored a legit goal.


So, what do you think; time for video technology or carry on with the ref and his whistle?

astrofool

I think the issue, as FIFA/UEFA see it, is that they would want the technology ubiquitous across all levels of football, i.e. right down to the conference level.

Daemos

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Last night, in the Confederation's Cup Final, Brazil scored a perfectly good goal, but it wasn't given because the referee didn't see it. Now, granted the Confederations Cup is only a Mickey Mouse tournament in the grand scheme of things, but what if this mistake had happened in the World Cup final or the Champions League final?

I propose that it is now time to use TV technology, in a similar manner to rugby, whereby the fourth official could instantly use video evidence to adjudicate upon critical decisions during the game, such as where the ball may have crossed the line, or where a player has been seriously injured off the ball unbeknownst to the referee, maybe even an eye-gouging. Of course, the fourth official wouldn't be called upon for the more trivial decisions, such as yellow cards, free kicks etc so it shouldn't interrupt the flow of the game. The fourth official may only have to be called upon once in a game; the example last night being to intervene and declare that Brazil scored a legit goal.


So, what do you think; time for video technology or carry on with the ref and his whistle?

I'm pretty sure it was suggested before you started this thread

Random

No

astrofool wrote: »

I think the issue, as FIFA/UEFA see it, is that they would want the technology ubiquitous across all levels of football, i.e. right down to the conference level.

They've brought it in for the Tennis this year in Wimbledon (or last year maybe it was). They haven't got it in everywhere but they've got it on some courts.

Little by little it could be added in the higher leagues (more money at stake??) and then filter it's way down.

Johnny Utah

No

astrofool wrote: »

I think the issue, as FIFA/UEFA see it, is that they would want the technology ubiquitous across all levels of football, i.e. right down to the conference level.

That makes no sense. Why not start off at the top tier and work down. There's more at stake in the bigger matches anyway.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that the rugby officials don't use video replays for the schools matches, so football could follow a similar model.


Edit: beaten to it

mink_man

No

astrofool wrote: »

I think the issue, as FIFA/UEFA see it, is that they would want the technology ubiquitous across all levels of football, i.e. right down to the conference level.

they use it in rugby for try scoring, its not used in lower leagues and theres no fuss!

pablomakaveli

No

I think it should be brought in and i think it probably will be in the next decade.

Another objection FIFA have to it is that it would slow the game down when the ref needs to consult the video ref. But if they only used it for the goal line and when there is doubt whether the ball crossed the line he would only probably consult not more than a couple of times in a match which nullifies that objection.

astrofool

Everything in football is usually tested at the lower levels, and then brought in at the high levels.

While rugby and tennis might not have a problem, the people behind football are very traditional, and quite resistant to change, where they have experimented with technology so far, it's been such that it could be applied at all levels (goal line sensors), and not in the form of TV replays, which only the top levels of football could implement.

ecoli

No

While i am all for the technology being introduce one thing hat differentiates soccer from the likes of rugby is the respect for the ref and the lack of argumenting. Players would see this as an opportunity to argue with the ref and completely ruin the work of the respect the ref campaign which has been badly needed due to the abuse from players like the CL semis( however warranted it was)

keane2097

No

ecoli wrote: »

While i am all for the technology being introduce one thing hat differentiates soccer from the likes of rugby is the respect for the ref and the lack of argumenting. Players would see this as an opportunity to argue with the ref and completely ruin the work of the respect the ref campaign which has been badly needed due to the abuse from players like the CL semis( however warranted it was)

The reason refs don't get respect is cos the make bad decisions so frequently...

DeadSkin

No

keane2097 wrote: »

The reason refs don't get respect is cos the make bad decisions so frequently...

Yes they make mistakes, but maybe all the more reason to bring technology into the game.
Question is how much? Goal line technology, video ref to call a handball, video ref to call penalty where a player may have dived, or player was fouled just outside the box......etc.....

Respect the ref campaign was a sham imo, refs need to grow some balls, if a player comes up mouthing off to a ref, wave the yellow card in his face. If he does it again, wave another, off ya go.

It would be chaos to start off with, but players/managers would soon get the message.

How can you expect respect, if you allow a player to treat you like a piece of shit?

HalloweenJack

No

Surely the decision in the Brazil Egypt match shows that video evidence can work. IIRC, it didn't take too long for the ref to hear from the fourth assistant (it was before the corner was taken anyway) and in the end they made the right decision, imo.

Surely this is evidence that it can be used.

If FIFA et al are afraid of this causing more delays because players and coaches will bitch about every decision, then maybe they should bring in some sort of timeout thing i.e. each team only gets three referrals to the fourth assistant each match.

ecoli

No

DeadSkin wrote: »

Yes they make mistakes, but maybe all the more reason to bring technology into the game.
Question is how much? Goal line technology, video ref to call a handball, video ref to call penalty where a player may have dived, or player was fouled just outside the box......etc.....

Respect the ref campaign was a sham imo, refs need to grow some balls, if a player comes up mouthing off to a ref, wave the yellow card in his face. If he does it again, wave another, off ya go.

It would be chaos to start off with, but players/managers would soon get the message.

How can you expect respect, if you allow a player to treat you like a piece of shit?

with the fans mentality this cannot work how many refs have had to retire after bad decisions that has resulted in death threats on the ref. If this was to happen the few refs that are around (be it not great ones mostly, dunno how Howard Webb is still there) will be driven from the game

Brando_ie

No

I voted yes a few days ago as it is a no brainer when goals are concerned but subsequent to that I was watching the Murray game at Wimbledon last night and that whole challenge thing is just a fantastic addition. Despite the system proving itself incredibly useful and amongst others, made a potential 0-40 game against Murray into a 15-30 (and eventual holding his serve in the fifth set) it seemed to actually add to the atmosphere.

Where a similar setup be implemented for soccer it could only be a good thing. The delay during each challenge was negligible (and for football might only be required once or twice a fortnight in the EPL) and frankly if a ref is compelled to seek confirmation (and assuming it was not a cloak and dagger affair) and a goal is allowed he is totally within his rights to start waving yellows at any discent. Its not as if he has made the wrong call and players should respect the correct decision.

Were the technology not 100% it would be a mistake but I find it hard to believe that a tennis ball at 130mph can be tracked and not a football??. UEFA / FIFA should at least allow the tech and let the federations decide if they want to implement it and at what levels.

No

Yes

mayordenis

Why do you love me? Why do you need me? Always and forever... We met in a chatroom, now our love can fully bloom... Sure the world wide web is great, but you, you make my salivate... I love technology, but not as much as you, you see... But I STILL love technology... Always and forever. Our love is like a flock of doves, flying up to heaven above... always and forever, always and forever... Why do you need me? Why do you love me? Always and forever...

monkey9

No

mayordenis wrote: »

Why do you love me? Why do you need me? Always and forever... We met in a chatroom, now our love can fully bloom... Sure the world wide web is great, but you, you make my salivate... I love technology, but not as much as you, you see... But I STILL love technology... Always and forever. Our love is like a flock of doves, flying up to heaven above... always and forever, always and forever... Why do you need me? Why do you love me? Always and forever...

I was just about to say this, beat me to it :pac:

monkey9

No

Defo think technology should be brought in. I don't see why it hasn't already been. It could just be used for goal line chances and dodgy decisions in the box.
There could be a limit in matches on how many times you can call for the technology.

The arguement that it would slow the game down doesn't ring true. The game stops for throw ins, corners, fouls, bookings etc.

Waiting to see if the ball has crossed the line or not could add to the excitement.

~Rebel~

TV Technology you say?

Never mind that, I'll be sticking to my wireless thank you very much.

monkey9

No

~Rebel~ wrote: »

TV Technology you say?

Never mind that, I'll be sticking to my wireless thank you very much.

The wireless is where the phrase 'back to square one' came from. Back in the thirties, newspapers would print diagrams of a pitch that would be divided up into squares so that when you were listening to the wireless, the commentator would name the square where the ball was. Square one would be the penalty box so if you tried to attack and were pushed back, if you passed back to the goalkeeper, the commentator would say "and it's back to square one".

So anyway, back on topic................:o

dfx-

No. Don't agree that it works practically without impinging on the game.

People only ever highlight where the ball had crossed the line as examples. Which is fine as you can tip off. Perfectly fine. But what about if it doesn't cross the line? Say the ball hadn't crossed the line and USA counterattacked. Where do you restart a counterattack and goalscoring oportunity. A drop ball and tv footage matching where everyone was? It's fine in rugby and cricket where the game has periods where footage can be looked at without affecting the next ball/over or scrum/lineout/penalty.

Or do you let the play continue while a minute of tv replays help the officials decide was it over which is even more ludicrous..

ArmaniJeanss

dfx- wrote: »

People only ever highlight where the ball had crossed the line as examples. Which is fine as you can tip off. Perfectly fine. But what about if it doesn't cross the line? Say the ball hadn't crossed the line and USA counterattacked.

More crucially what if the team score from their counterattack?
The TVMO goes back to look at the original goal/nogoal and suddenly we have a potential 2 goal swing on the TVMO's decision. That'll be fun in an Old Firm derby.

By the way there has been some appallingly incorrect decisions in Rugby depsite the presense of TVM (the one that denied Ireland a grand slam 3 years ago swings to mind) and in tennis Hawkeye* is so inaccurate that Roger Federer and other top players have called for its removal.

* The Hawkeye people themselves admit it can be wrong by around 4mm.