TV Match Officials or Goal-line Assistants

dfx-

Paleface wrote: »

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.

You're sort of proving my point - in relation to the often used argument that other sports use it successfully. Because other sports use it well on occasions and are up to date with technology has no bearing on its use or success in football. Indeed I don't agree that as technology is in sport would be a guaranteed benefit to football as people think. There will be superfluous challenges regardless, based on how 'well' it works in other sports.

Another example in rugby is a few years ago for Italy against Ireland I think where they ploughed over the try line en masse but the tv judge couldn't see the ball no matter how many replays. It was given a try though without many complaints because the ball must've been over the line...

bigstar wrote: »

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.

Also I'd agree with the idea of it only being used for goals (or not as the case may be). But that's not only what World Cups or leagues are won or lost by. If a striker is in on goal, falls over and the defender clears the ball forward to attack..do you stop and check if it was a foul/red card? That is what games can be won and lost by - millions of euro lost by a wrong decision. And where do you restart the game in the case of no foul, upfield where the clearance is and advantage defending team or back where the striker fell?

noodler

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..

Don't players only get 3 calls each? Does that mean they just wasted 5 of them in the 5 minutes you were watching?

Surely that doesn't happen all the time.

dfx-

3 calls per set each afaik and an extra one each for a tiebreak. The 10 minutes was over the end of one set and start of another.

As the commentators said "it's worth a look at replay, or maybe not" as Verdasco nearly did it again later on for a ball that was a long way away from the line. And matches I've watched are much more likely to 'waste' calls the later the set gets on the off chance they over-turn a call.

Having said that, Del Potro won a set on a correct call mid-point that he himself wasn't sure of.

noodler

dfx- wrote: »

3 calls per set each afaik and an extra one each for a tiebreak. The 10 minutes was over the end of one set and start of another.

As the commentators said "it's worth a look at replay, or maybe not" as Verdasco nearly did it again later on for a ball that was a long way away from the line. And matches I've watched are much more likely to 'waste' calls the later the set gets on the off chance they over-turn a call.

Having said that, Del Potro won a set on a correct call mid-point that he himself wasn't sure of.

Wow alot more than I thought.

Still want a 4th/5th official watching the video screen regardless.