Video technology

HalloweenJack

I've just been watching the Masters Football on Sky and there was an incident in the final where they used a video replay.

Bolton were 3-2 up and Tranmere had a shot which was blocked in the box by a Bolton player. The Bolton player went down holding his face but Tranmere players were claiming it was a penalty. Bolton went down the other end and scored to make it 4-2.

After this, the ref stopped the game and went to watch the replay. The replay showed the ball had hit the Bolton player's arm and it should have been a penalty. Ref gave a peno, ruling out the Bolton goal in the process. Tranmere scored the peno and won the game 4-3 in the end.

I say the time taken to view the replay took about a minute, at most, and in the end the right decision was made.

I know that sometimes when people bring up video technology, people say it should be tried out in lower leagues or "unimportant" things. Now, to me, the Masters just seems to be a bit of a laugh and it's in the telly so it's the perfect opportunity to try out video technology.

My point is this was a good example of video technology and, in the end, the right decision was made. After the incident in the Confederations Cup earlier in the year, where they also used video technology which also only took about a minute, I think there's sufficient evidence to show that it's not too disruptive or time-wasting to check video replays, especially when it can effect the outcome of a game.

Perhaps they can have a fifth official watching a telly somewhere in the stadium. If there's an incident the ref isn't sure about, he should let the game play on until the ball goes dead and then ask the fifth official to look at a replay.

That_Guy

When I was watching Champions League coverage a week or two ago Andy Gray was discussing video technology in relation to Eduardo's alleged dive and he was saying that video technology should be used but only in relation to matter of fact situations such as "did the ball cross the line?" and penalty incidents and some offsides.

It would only take a moment to come up with a decision and would rectify a lot of mistakes which go against teams.

If cricket, tennis and rugby can use VT then why not football?

Human error will always play a part in big decisions so I hope against hope that VT will be introduced soon.

I know they're planning on bringing in two more ref's in the Europa League to marshall each penalty area to determine incidents but you can see more with VT.

jesus_thats_gre

Play wouldn't even have to be stopped.

As an incident happens, the video ref can just be talking to the ref on the pitch telling him that it looks a bit dodgy and to take his time making his decision until he gets to see the replay.

Soby

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Play wouldn't even have to be stopped.

As an incident happens, the video ref can just be talking to the ref on the pitch telling him that it looks a bit dodgy and to take his time making his decision until he gets to see the replay.

Yup,At max your talking about a 30seconds halt to the game.For most decions it be less than 10

ArmaniJeanss

That_Guy wrote: »

When I was watching Champions League coverage a week or two ago Andy Gray was discussing video technology in relation to Eduardo's alleged dive and he was saying that video technology should be used but only in relation to matter of fact situations such as "did the ball cross the line?" and penalty incidents and some offsides.

I'd suspect it would quickly end up as 'all offsides'.
It might start off with only marginal ones where the linesman wasn't sure, but then eventually the officials would mistakenly not refer one (because they were so sure of the decision , but proved wrong) so from then on all offside decisions would be referred as the officials would be scared of being ridiculed/sacked like the officials in the previous mistake.

I'm against it, but I accept I'm in a small minority.

I do think that proponents haven't quite thought it through.

Hawkeye in tennis is innacurate to 4mm, and Federer is on record as wanting it gone.
Cricket has abandoned it already for some decisions after a couple of farcical series. (They still use it for runouts).

Talk off 'a 30 second at most stoppage' is pie-in-the-sky, we've all seen 3+ minute delays at rugby whilst ten angles are looked at.

And the incident that the OP described where a goal got scored at the other end before the first decision could be verified.... All I can say is Wowww to the amount of pressure that the TVMO will be under when that happens in a really important game. I could see killings at certain games around Europe when teams are told that a) their goal is ruled out and b) its a penalty at the other end.

I'm sure they'll bring it in eventually

GLaDOS

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

we've all seen 3+ minute delays at....

...matches where a player rolls around on the ground and all the players argue about what should happen.

Soby

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Talk off 'a 30 second at most stoppage' is pie-in-the-sky, we've all seen 3+ minute delays at rugby whilst ten angles are looked at.

Ah ye but thats with about 9 bodies over the ball and trying to see if it touched down over the line.Slightly different than seeing if a ball went over the line or not

anonymous_joe

A bloke with a mic talking into the ref's earpiece would sort it all out nigh on instantaneously.

FIFA are just a paranoid joke of an organisation run by a shower of fools. Kinda like the Dáil. But better dressed.

That_Guy

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd suspect it would quickly end up as 'all offsides'.
It might start off with only marginal ones where the linesman wasn't sure, but then eventually the officials would mistakenly not refer one (because they were so sure of the decision , but proved wrong) so from then on all offside decisions would be referred as the officials would be scared of being ridiculed/sacked like the officials in the previous mistake.

I'm against it, but I accept I'm in a small minority.

I do think that proponents haven't quite thought it through.

Hawkeye in tennis is innacurate to 4mm, and Federer is on record as wanting it gone.
Cricket has abandoned it already for some decisions after a couple of farcical series. (They still use it for runouts).

Talk off 'a 30 second at most stoppage' is pie-in-the-sky, we've all seen 3+ minute delays at rugby whilst ten angles are looked at.

And the incident that the OP described where a goal got scored at the other end before the first decision could be verified.... All I can say is Wowww to the amount of pressure that the TVMO will be under when that happens in a really important game. I could see killings at certain games around Europe when teams are told that a) their goal is ruled out and b) its a penalty at the other end.

I'm sure they'll bring it in eventually

To be fair there's a lot more going on in rugby so they have to take the time to ensure if a try has been scored or not as there's generally a load of bodies in the way and is not easy to make a decision easily and quickly.

blue-army

I dont agree with video technology in football. It's decisions like this what make football exciting. They give us stuff to talk about.



I'm not a fan of goal line technology either, not unless it's used in all leagues, which let's face it, wont happen.

Boggles

Football is fine the way it is, whatever the arguements video technology will slow down a game which needs speeding up.

Oh and video refs don't always get it right.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/video-ref-disallows-try-to-jarryd-hayne-but-photo-shows-he-got-it-wrong/story-e6frexv9-1225720608623

iregk

Boggles wrote: »

Oh and video refs don't always get it right.

In fairness that's 1 controversial incident of a video ref getting something wrong in rugby against how many incidents of 4 officials at a football match getting things wrong?

I'm a huge believer that FIFA don't want to use video evidence and are blocking it. I'm all for it and there is no reason why we shouldn't be using it. On the other side if video replay is brought in how are FIFA going to ensure the hosts of tournaments get to the semi's on dodgy decisions?

Boggles

iregk wrote: »

In fairness that's 1 controversial incident of a video ref getting something wrong in rugby against how many incidents of 4 officials at a football match getting things wrong?

It is not an isolated incident. And is now widely accepted that video refs in rugby have slowed the game down too much.

Match officials in football get the vast majority of key decisions right, even after the event I have seen incidents 100 times from 10 different angles and still can't make up my mind.

iregk wrote: »

I'm a huge believer that FIFA don't want to use video evidence and are blocking it. I'm all for it and there is no reason why we shouldn't be using it. On the other side if video replay is brought in how are FIFA going to ensure the hosts of tournaments get to the semi's on dodgy decisions?

Thats tin hat stuff in fairness.