TV Match Officials or Goal-line Assistants

My name is URL

Which would you prefer to be brought into the modern game?

I think it's a cop out by FIFA to believe that adding extra officials will have much of an impact

why don't they just allow the ref to consult a VMO like in rugby for close calls etc?

That_Guy

Because FIFA don't give a sh*t about small clubs or countries.

Eire-Dearg

A video match official would be more feasible, like rugby, American football and eagle eye in golf, tennis etc.

Melion

Goal Line assistants, less time wasting.

Headshot

I think what they have in the Europa league with the 2 refs behind the goal is a pile of ****e

you still get human error

Jax Teller

Melion wrote: »

Goal Line assistants, less time wasting.

No doubt they would miss certain stuff

That_Guy

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

No doubt FIFA would pay them to miss certain stuff

FYP

johnp

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

No doubt they would miss certain stuff

They would, but TMO's can still miss things too. Even on replays things can be inconclusive.
And TMO's could (should?) only be called upon if the ref needs help.

That_Guy

johnp wrote: »

They would, but TMO's can still miss things too. Even on replays things can be inconclusive.
And TMO's could (should?) only be called upon if the ref needs help.

Do what the NFL do and use challenges. Three challenges during the match for both managers.

johnp

That_Guy wrote: »

Do what the NFL do and use challenges. Three challenges during the match for both managers.

Maybe, but if Ireland had already used their challenges, and couldn't have done anything about the handball where would that leave us?
I can see arguments on both sides, I went for extra assistants.
Also, if I can use the Henry incident again, what would have happened if Given palmed the ball out to the edge of the box and it was played to the wing, crossed in and scored? Or palmed out, went back to their keeper, played back up the pitch and scored? Can it still be challenged?

efb

Cos an extra ref would allow FIFa to keep therir 'big team' bias and appear to be doing something! Video Ref!

Aidric

Headshot wrote: »

I think what they have in the Europa league with the 2 refs behind the goal is a pile of ****e

you still get human error

Correct. Video Technology is an absolute no brainer in my eyes. It wouldn't take too long either as some are trying to make out.

That_Guy

johnp wrote: »

Maybe, but if Ireland had already used their challenges, and couldn't have done anything about the handball where would that leave us?

To be fair, at that stage there was nothing that preceeded the handball that was really worth challenging.

Also, if I can use the Henry incident again, what would have happened if Given palmed the ball out to the edge of the box and it was played to the wing, crossed in and scored? Or palmed out, went back to their keeper, played back up the pitch and scored? Can it still be challenged?

Good point. In the NFL they've ref's all along the sidelines and anytime there's a foul or anything a flag is thrown and the game, regardless if a team scores a TD is stopped immediately.

So if Trap had thrown his flag when he thought something was up straight away the game should be stopped iimmediately and the incident reviewed by the video ref and a decision is then made.

Eire-Dearg

johnp wrote: »

Maybe, but if Ireland had already used their challenges, and couldn't have done anything about the handball where would that leave us?
I can see arguments on both sides, I went for extra assistants.
Also, if I can use the Henry incident again, what would have happened if Given palmed the ball out to the edge of the box and it was played to the wing, crossed in and scored? Or palmed out, went back to their keeper, played back up the pitch and scored? Can it still be challenged?

An extra "challenge" if it goes to extra time.

Anyway, it's highly unlikely you'd use all three in one game.

johnp

That_Guy wrote: »

To be fair, at that stage there was nothing that preceeded the handball that was really worth challenging.



Good point. In the NFL they've ref's all along the sidelines and anytime there's a foul or anything a flag is thrown and the game, regardless if a team scores a TD is stopped immediately.

So if Trap had thrown his flag when he thought something was up straight away the game should be stopped iimmediately and the incident reviewed by the video ref and a decision is then made.

So a combination of the two? Maybe thats the way to go.

Screw it, let get the players in big pads, change the ball to a little oval one, play for yardage and have tasty cheerleaders
Just kidding

That_Guy

johnp wrote: »

So a combination of the two? Maybe thats the way to go.

Screw it, let get the players in big pads, change the ball to a little oval one, play for yardage and have tasty cheerleaders
Just kidding

I'm sure Mr. Blatter will allow it.

Germany have an experiment going on now whereby if a player is deemed to have handled the ball the ref will ask the player if he handled the ball.

If the player says yes then a yellow card is issued.
If the player says no then if replays at the end of the game show that he did indeed handle the ball then that player will be banned for a certain number of games.

Heard that on Soccer Saturday. Interesting one.

johnp

That_Guy wrote: »

I'm sure Mr. Blatter will allow it.

Germany have an experiment going on now whereby if a player is deemed to have handled the ball the ref will ask the player if he handled the ball.

If the player says yes then a yellow card is issued.
If the player says no then if replays at the end of the game show that he did indeed handle the ball then that player will be banned for a certain number of games.

Heard that on Soccer Saturday. Interesting one.

Yeah, Giles was talking about that last week. I think it's a great idea. Would encourage more honesty in the game.

EDIT: Granted you still can't reverse results, but maybe in time it would make it a more honest game.

My name is URL

Melion wrote: »

Goal Line assistants, less time wasting.

It only takes about 30 seconds for a ref to confer, that's less than when players get stroppy with him after he makes a dodgy decision

If each team had 2-3 'calls' per match, it would cut down on belligerence from players during the running of the game.. thus reducing time wasting, not increasing it

More assistants means more fallibility, and more pissed off players

BrianCalgary

Forget the NFL model or the canadian Football model. Neither of them would work in soccer as they are three different games. CFL and NFL have natural stops and starts that make video review easy, also the coaches have until tehstart of the next play to challenge. No such natural distinction happens in soccer.

The NHL model would work best. Where an extra video official reviews what he knows will be controversial and signals the referee that a review is taking place.

In the Ireland/ france match, from tehtime thegoal was scored until theref finally got rid of thecomplaining Irish players, the video review ref would have seen the play and communicated to the on field official the correct call.

The timing would have hardly been noticeable. He would act as an AR, but upstairs. He would have certain calls he could make: did the ball cross the goalline (thereby awarding Spurs a goal v Man U a couple of years back). Was there a handball?

He couldn't reverse a judgement call on a foul by a player. Ie, the crowd screams for a penalty after a tackle.

the idea would need reifinement, but it works well in the NHL.

Boggles

Video evidence would ruin the sport.

Footballs imperfections is what makes it one of the most exciting sports in the world.

bigstar

Boggles wrote: »

Video evidence would ruin the sport.

Footballs imperfections is what makes it one of the most exciting sports in the world.

oh really. if thats what makes it exciting for you i think you need a new sport.

video ref ftw.

thebman

I think video ref for any goal (players spend that much time celebrating anyway).

Other than that, referee can call it for anything in the box with linesman approval.

Other than that, managers can call video ref 3 times for judgment calls.

If players lie to ref, 3 months wages docked and put into fair play fund to help fund the campaign and ban them for a number of matches depending on the offense committed.

Boggles

bigstar wrote: »

oh really. if thats what makes it exciting for you i think you need a new sport.

One of the aspects that make the sport exciting is controversey.

For some reason people like yourself bleating on that technology will improve sports without really thinking it through. There are plenty of thriving exciting sports that don't use technology.

Hawk Eye in Tennis in my opinion has taken from the sport and sterilised it somewhat.

What Technology gives, it takes away in a far greater quantity IMO.

bigstar

thebman wrote: »

If players lie to ref, 3 months wages docked and put into fair play fund to help fund the campaign and ban them for a number of matches depending on the offense committed.

i like this, maybe 3 months is too much but the fair play fund thing is a good idea.

im in favour of retrospective punishments though. i think if there was a policy of retrospective punishments players may be deterred from diving etc.

Headshot

Boggles wrote: »

One of the aspects that make the sport exciting is controversey.

For some reason people like yourself bleating on that technology will improve sports without really thinking it through. There are plenty of thriving exciting sports that don't use technology.

Hawk Eye in Tennis in my opinion has taken from the sport and sterilised it somewhat.

What Technology gives, it takes away in a far greater quantity IMO.

so you rather have a possibility of a manager fired or a team maybe getting relegated ?

boggles you must not watch alot of tennis, hawk eye has been a success story, brings drama and the fans love it

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yesssssssssssssssssssssssss

bigstar

Boggles wrote: »

One of the aspects that make the sport exciting is controversey.

For some reason people like yourself bleating on that technology will improve sports without really thinking it through. There are plenty of thriving exciting sports that don't use technology.

Hawk Eye in Tennis in my opinion has taken from the sport and sterilised it somewhat.

What Technology gives, it takes away in a far greater quantity IMO.

seriously controversy makes football exciting. not to me its the playing of the sport by the best in the world that make it exciting. which world cup final was more exciting, the great footballing game of 1998 or the controversial headbutt of 2006.

have you ever played football. did you always do something controversial to make the game more exciting. actually why do you even watch football if one of the more important aspects is controversy. watch x factor or something instead.

Holsten

Video!

tolosenc

Video. If a ref thinks it's a goal or a peno but is unsure, goes upstairs to ask for a reason not to award it (ie a dive/foul in the build up to the goal), like rugby. No challenges or anything.

Or have a guy in the stands watching a telly and reporting into the ref's ear. :P

sd08

Surely there could just be an official to the side(4th official perhaps?) that monitor the game on a screen and if they see anything that the ref may have missed or that contradicts what the ref may have given, he could then call him up on it and the ref can make the correct decision.
For example with the Henry incident, the assistant sees the handball on the replay and informs the ref before kick-off and a free out is given and we play from there, with minimal delay.
Obviously we couldn't use this for offside decisions unless the gaol is scored with the first touch afterwards and even then it mightn't be feasible. But this would at least be a solution to goal line decisions and other stuff lke that.

PHB

I just don't see any practical way to implement TV officials. I think extra refs is without a doubt the way to go.

So you implement some sort of appeal system or something, when the ref doesn't give a foul or whatever.

Let's say, Rooney through on goal, Cech fouls him, ref doesn't give it, rolls to Terry, passes to Lampard, through ball to Drogba, Drobga scores. United then appeal it, and it shoulda been a penalty. Should Chelsea then not get their goal? How far back can you do. What if the ball stays in play for 5 minutes. It works fine in Rugby, Tennis, American Football because their are natural breaks in the game. It can't really work in football imo.

I think goal line technology so that the ref gets a buzz in his ear every time the ball goes over any line, combined with 2 extra refs as tried in the UEFA Cup, will result in a much better. Beyond that, I don't want to see the game lose its flow.

thebman

PHB wrote: »

I just don't see any practical way to implement TV officials. I think extra refs is without a doubt the way to go.

So you implement some sort of appeal system or something, when the ref doesn't give a foul or whatever.

Let's say, Rooney through on goal, Cech fouls him, ref doesn't give it, rolls to Terry, passes to Lampard, through ball to Drogba, Drobga scores. United then appeal it, and it shoulda been a penalty. Should Chelsea then not get their goal? How far back can you do. What if the ball stays in play for 5 minutes. It works fine in Rugby, Tennis, American Football because their are natural breaks in the game. It can't really work in football imo.

I think goal line technology so that the ref gets a buzz in his ear every time the ball goes over any line, combined with 2 extra refs as tried in the UEFA Cup, will result in a much better. Beyond that, I don't want to see the game lose its flow.

There are loads of natural breaks in soccer. For some reason people seem to make believe they aren't there.

throws/corners/goals/goal kicks/frees/penalties.

It takes about 10 seconds longer at most to go to the video ref over letting play run normally. I don't see the problem, the video ref would only be used if the ref thought he didn't have a good view.

In rugby the refs are still allowed to make the mistake of thinking they know right but for big decisions they go to video ref.

It seems football likes to make believe its more different than it actually is IMO.

IvySlayer

Boggles wrote: »

One of the aspects that make the sport exciting is controversey.

For some reason people like yourself bleating on that technology will improve sports without really thinking it through. There are plenty of thriving exciting sports that don't use technology.

Hawk Eye in Tennis in my opinion has taken from the sport and sterilised it somewhat.

What Technology gives, it takes away in a far greater quantity IMO.

Hawk Eye has improved the sport, instead of players moaning at umpires they challenge, and about 90% of the time, the players are correct. Most players love the new system, also it's great craic for the crowd. OHHHHHH....

Anyway, I voted for Video Ref.

kincsem

Video ref for goals, penalties, and red cards for competitive internationals, major competitions, and top level leagues please. The video ref could easily review the play before the pitch ref gets the play restarted.

And give Arsene Wenger a red card because he often supports deception.

Boggles

Headshot wrote: »

so you rather have a possibility of a manager fired or a team maybe getting relegated ?

No manager loses his job and no team gets relegated over one bad decision.

Headshot wrote: »

boggles you must not watch alot of tennis, hawk eye has been a success story, brings drama and the fans love it

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yesssssssssssssssssssssssss

IvySlayer wrote: »

Hawk Eye has improved the sport, instead of players moaning at umpires they challenge, and about 90% of the time, the players are correct. Most players love the new system, also it's great craic for the crowd. OHHHHHH....

Anyway, I voted for Video Ref.

I have watched tennis since the early 80s. It's a different sport now. I would go as far as to say it is boring and over professionalized.

And Hawk Eye isn't the big success you are making it out to be, there is huge questions over it's acuracy with even the great Federer calling it nonsense.

Most decisions in football are not black and white, more like several shades of gray, pundits, fans and officials are split on alot of decisions even after wathcing them several times from varying angles.

Soccer is at its best when it is free flowing, stopping it to go upstairs to get an other humans opinion will kill the game, I'm sure of it.

redout

A Hawkeye system like tennis would be brilliant for balls crossing the line etc but a video referee for incidents takes to much time. People saying 30 sec etc are talking through their arse. In rugby the game is usually stopped from anywhere between 60 sec to 2min on occasion. It totally disrupts the flow of the game. As regards assistant referee behind the goal I am not convinced as you will still get human error so as above Hawkeye for that but possibly the assistants for incidents in the box.

thebman

redout wrote: »

A Hawkeye system like tennis would be brilliant for balls crossing the line etc but a video referee for incidents takes to much time. People saying 30 sec etc are talking through their arse. In rugby the game is usually stopped from anywhere between 60 sec to 2min on occasion. It totally disrupts the flow of the game. As regards assistant referee behind the goal I am not convinced as you will still get human error so as above Hawkeye for that but possibly the assistants for incidents in the box.

I don't think I've ever seen a rugby game stopped for 2 minutes to go to video ref.

Time it, it is not 2 minutes and if it is they spend the time showing replays for the crowd so whats the problem?

It only disrupts the game when you have to go to it, you don't go to it for general incidents in play, that doesn't make any sense and doesn't happen in Rugby.

Again the referee is allowed make decisions during play, it is only if something like a player gets injured which will disrupt play anyway or a goal being scored that you need to go to the video ref and the game is disrupted at those points anyway.

How many times has a player feigned contact/injury for about a minute or 2 lying on the pitch rolling in agony?

Boggles

thebman wrote: »

I don't think I've ever seen a rugby game stopped for 2 minutes to go to video ref.

Seriously??

There was a decision at the weekend that took 4+ minutes.

There is a growing Vocal amongst the sport that it is taking way too long and ruining the flow of the game.

redout

thebman wrote: »

I don't think I've ever seen a rugby game stopped for 2 minutes to go to video ref.

Time it, it is not 2 minutes and if it is they spend the time showing replays for the crowd so whats the problem?

It only disrupts the game when you have to go to it, you don't go to it for general incidents in play, that doesn't make any sense and doesn't happen in Rugby.

Again the referee is allowed make decisions during play, it is only if something like a player gets injured which will disrupt play anyway or a goal being scored that you need to go to the video ref and the game is disrupted at those points anyway.

How many times has a player feigned contact/injury for about a minute or 2 lying on the pitch rolling in agony?

The rugby can as I said take about 2mins on occasion especially when they cant make up their mind as to what actually happened. The Ireland try at the end against Australia the other week took a good two mins from the time the video ref was called before an "inconclusive" verdict was returned.

GavRedKing

I went for goal line assistant because there job would be simple, if there had have been one present behind either goal, that official would have been on the side of that incident and could have called it accordingly, yes it allows for human errors but with a potential of 3 officials looking at it instead of the regular 2 those odds are cut.

matrim

I voted for TV Official because I think it's the fairest way, but the goal line assistant could work for contentious decisions in the box, provided they changed the rules and also brought in retrospective bannings for blatant cheating that the refs missed (anywhere on the pitch)

That_Guy

redout wrote: »

A Hawkeye system like tennis would be brilliant for balls crossing the line etc but a video referee for incidents takes to much time. People saying 30 sec etc are talking through their arse. In rugby the game is usually stopped from anywhere between 60 sec to 2min on occasion. It totally disrupts the flow of the game. As regards assistant referee behind the goal I am not convinced as you will still get human error so as above Hawkeye for that but possibly the assistants for incidents in the box.

Think about rugby and then think of football.
Of course it'll take longer for rugby officials to make up their mind. There's bodies everywhere.
Football would take a minute at least.

johnp

thebman wrote: »

I don't think I've ever seen a rugby game stopped for 2 minutes to go to video ref.

Time it, it is not 2 minutes and if it is they spend the time showing replays for the crowd so whats the problem?

It only disrupts the game when you have to go to it, you don't go to it for general incidents in play, that doesn't make any sense and doesn't happen in Rugby.

Again the referee is allowed make decisions during play, it is only if something like a player gets injured which will disrupt play anyway or a goal being scored that you need to go to the video ref and the game is disrupted at those points anyway.

How many times has a player feigned contact/injury for about a minute or 2 lying on the pitch rolling in agony?

They never show replays at football.

delspeed78

Goal line assisants would be the next natural step. If they brought in video refs there would be no going back. There are so many grey areas in relation to the rules anyway that a video ref in my opinion could end up as controversial as the current method.
Therefore I went for goal line assistant, not lest to protect the flow of the game but also to keep alive the human aspect of officiating. It might work in other sports but there are no guarantees it will work in football.
I like having someone to vent my anger at anyway when a desicision goes a my team, right or wrong!!

dfx-

I was the first to vote for neither :cool:

Ask Roger Federer at the US Open final what he thinks of Hawk-eye..

Corben Dallas

Video Ref. This is the 21st century. Football needs to get its act together.

Paleface

A video ref is the only way to rule out reasonable doubt. If it isn't conclusive from numerous replays then nobody should have anything to complain about. If goal line assistants miss something but its clear in replays then we are right back where we started.

Anyone who is worried about disrupting the flow of the game is being far too over cautious. Games get disrupted all the time by various time wasting techniques or injuries and it doesn't really have an overall impact on the game from what I can see. I don't envisage as situation where a team is trying to run down the clock and suddenly a manager insists that everything goes to the video ref.

Its use should be very limited and not called for by the ref but instead by the managers discretion. Like in tennis. That way they will only call for it when they are confident the ref has missed something. The reason I think that ref's should not be allowed to call for it is because we would see shirking of responsibilities which happens a lot in rugby.

dfx-

I'm watching Juan Martin Del Potro v Fernando Verdasco right now.

In the last 5-10 minutes, there have been 4-5 pointless calls from the players to see Hawk-eye all proving the original verdict correct. All chance-your-arm calls. In the US Open final, the time taken for the palyers to call for Hawk-eye was a farce and had both players complaining to the umpire about the time taken. And that's in a game that is naturally broken up between points..

In the recent test series between West Indies and England, the teams calling for tv replays of judgements became a laughing stock and the third tv umpire in one test at least was openly ridiculed for calls..

bigstar

I dont think the hawk eye system would work, at least not with challenges allowed. it should be up to the ref to decide when to go to the tv ref and only at allowed times like goals and penalties.

this flow of the game stuff is a myth. the ball is only in play for about 30 minutes or less each half. that leaves plenty of time for dodgy decisions to be looked at again, and like i said only for certain incidents.

refereeing is too inconsistent these days or at least appears that way because we can all watch instant replays again and again. football has evolved to be the sport it is now and that evolution should continue.

Oliver1985

Video all they way!!

Paleface

dfx- wrote: »

I'm watching Juan Martin Del Potro v Fernando Verdasco right now.

In the last 5-10 minutes, there have been 4-5 pointless calls from the players to see Hawk-eye all proving the original verdict correct. All chance-your-arm calls. In the US Open final, the time taken for the palyers to call for Hawk-eye was a farce and had both players complaining to the umpire about the time taken. And that's in a game that is naturally broken up between points..

In the recent test series between West Indies and England, the teams calling for tv replays of judgements became a laughing stock and the third tv umpire in one test at least was openly ridiculed for calls..

Tennis is a completely stop start sport in comparison to football these days. Most points are won or lost without even a decent rally. How often in a football game does a situation arise where a goal or penalty is given incorrectly in comparison to bad line calls in tennis? Its only in these situation that I could see video referring being applied. Not to situations when the ball crossed the line for a throw in but the ref doesn't give it which is effectively what the tennis players contest all the time.

Lets face it cricket never really gets going at all and also decisions are made on what might have happened e.g LBW's instead of what did happen!

You have to think video refereeing for football in its own context entirely. They might not get it exactly right first time around but with tweaking it could work very well.

ADTR

Video match official. Definitely.