Platini U turn on video replays to determine offside goals?

Mr Cumulonimbus

Apparently he's now conceeding video replays may be needed to ensure the correct decision is given over goals allowed or disallowed by an incorrect call from the ref and linesmen. Can't come in soon enough I think. Views?

Link to article in Daily Mail.

ScummyMan

Not for me, I still think there needs to be some degree of human error. Video replays for goal line decisions will do for now anyway imo.

dfx-

Disagree with use of technology, not needed

LuckyLloyd

lol at the posts above mine.

For some reason, football "needs" the human error that every other serious sport has cut down on substantially via technology. Well according to its fans who, lets face it, aren't the smartest bunch by times.

Of course video technology should be implemented in a substantial fashion.

Red Crow

I just want to hear: "After further review, the ruling on the field is overturned..."

We clearly need to implement some form of technology IMO

GavRedKing

I'm all for it.

Far too many teams have been on the wrong end of decisions that can cost teams big team over the course of a season.

CSF

Lets face it, Platini just wants to be in as many newspaper headlines as possible.

MagicMarker

Man.UnitedLad wrote: »

Not for me, I still think there needs to be some degree of human error. Video replays for goal line decisions will do for now anyway imo.

What the actual fúck?

Why do we need human error?

Platini saying something that makes sense? Surely not

Mr Cumulonimbus

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'm all for it.

Far too many teams have been on the wrong end of decisions that can cost teams big team over the course of a season.

Yes. Plus the often quoted comment that the introduction of technology would disrupt the flow of the game isn't appplicable here, since there is a natural pause after a goal is scored. Having a look at a replay to ensure a correct decision is given would only add little more time before the restart.

jebidiah

Should definatly come in. If the referee or linesman is in doubt the should be able o call on it to clarify.

As some one said about a natural stop after a goal...
What about a situation where the ball crosses the line (bounces behind the line or is cleared while behind the line) and then comes back out as the referee/linesman didn't see.

The game isn't stopped an play continues usually but there are replays shown on tv, how would that work out?

death1234567

Retropective action for diving and proper punishments for it is about 100 times more important than implementing technology for goal line desicions. Of course the incompotent buffoons that run the game won't do anything about it.

Mr Cumulonimbus

jebidiah wrote: »

As some one said about a natural stop after a goal...
What about a situation where the ball crosses the line (bounces behind the line or is cleared while behind the line) and then comes back out as the referee/linesman didn't see.

The game isn't stopped an play continues usually but there are replays shown on tv, how would that work out?

Already dealt with by FIFA? Goal line technology (Hawkeye etc) to hopefully look after this. To be officially tested at next month's World Club tournament.

greendom

CSF wrote: »

Lets face it, Platini just wants to be in as many newspaper headlines as possible.

Yes open any newspaper and there he is :rolleyes:

gnfnrhead

Don't know how anyone can think we need human error in the game. It is supposed to be about which was the better side on the day, not who got the lucky calls. Instead of a replay for everything, just give a manager two or three calls per game. When they get used is up to him. If there is a limit the manager won't be using them for just anything, they will be kept for questionable goals.

Long overdue and don't understand why anyone would be opposed to it.

Fr Tod Umptious

In the NFL this season all scores are automatically reviewed to confirm them.

the same could happen in soccer.

After a goal is scored it could be review to confirm it was a goal, if it was a gaol good and well, if it was not , e.g offside, ball did not cross line, handball in the build-up, then it would be a free to the opposition and the game could continue

It would take no longer than it currently takes to restart a game after one team has finished celebrating and the other have finished arguing with the ref

dfx-

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

After a goal is scored it could be review to confirm it was a goal, if it was a gaol good and well, if it was not , e.g offside, ball did not cross line, handball in the build-up, then it would be a free to the opposition and the game could continue

It would take no longer than it currently takes to restart a game after one team has finished celebrating and the other have finished arguing with the ref

What about something subjective in the build up, a 50/50 or 60/40 tackle say - something I would give if I was ref, but you wouldn't.

Generally speaking, if people want video technology, play cricket. And then complain about predictive technology like the last New Zealand v South Africa test series, where the version of Hawkeye was a joke or complain about whether the ball bounced or was caught..which no camera can reliably do.

From that cricket series, one of the best allrounders in cricket: 'Not convinced by predictive path'

http://www.eatsleepsport.com/cricket/hawk-eye-to-continue-in-nz-despite-row-1395697.html

Umpires should over-rule virtual path errors:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-south-africa-2012/content/story/557712.html

Leiva

If it can be done quickly and not have players and fans waiting then Im all for it.

game needs to be taken out of the dark ages on many issues.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

dfx- wrote: »

What about something subjective in the build up, a 50/50 or 60/40 tackle say - something I would give if I was ref, but you wouldn't.

Well then there's your human error/judgement, as so many people seem to love.

dfx-

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

Well then there's your human error/judgement, as so many people seem to love.

So we're back to square one then. A goal could be given by video evidence that is given on the field of play and yet still have people arguing over it and how it shouldn't have been given, like they would've been anyway without video evidence.

LuckyLloyd

dfx- wrote: »

So we're back to square one then. A goal could be given by video evidence that is given on the field of play and yet still have people arguing over it and how it shouldn't have been given, like they would've been anyway without video evidence.

No, we're not.

Handball in the build up
Offside
Clear foul on a defender
Ball strayed out of play

Usual bull**** argument: "here's an edge case the application of video technology would not completely eradicate so lets stick our head in the sand and do nothing so".

Logic and reason the real victims in all of this - football fans have them beaten half to death at this stage.

ArmaniJeanss

Leiva wrote: »

If it can be done quickly and not have players and fans waiting then Im all for it.

game needs to be taken out of the dark ages on many issues.

It almost certainly can't be done quickly despite the earlier post about how it would take no longer than it currently takes to get the game restarted after a goal anyway.
A goal may have many query points ; Gerrard wins ball in midfield (possible foul), passes it to Downing who runs down the line (with a hint that it may have been out of touch) and crosses for Suarez (marginal onside/offside) who takes it down on his chest (or was it his arm) before scoring. This isn't going to get sorted in 40 seconds.

Whether it should be done or not is a different issue (personally I'm marginally in the No camp) but the Yes side coming out with garbage about how quick it'll be serves no-one. This will add a huge amount of time to the average game.

Mr Cumulonimbus

dfx- wrote: »

So we're back to square one then. A goal could be given by video evidence that is given on the field of play and yet still have people arguing over it and how it shouldn't have been given, like they would've been anyway without video evidence.

But do you not want the number of these arguments reduced?

There are simply too many incidences of goals wrongly allowed or disallowed because of incorrect offside decisions. Its not possible for the officials refereeing the game to get them all right. And don't forget its not a machine making the decision, its another person using the technology who will make the call.

@ArmaniJeanss.

I think very few people are calling for all disputed goals to be reviewed. I wouldn't want that. But offside goals should be. Would you like replays just for these?

munchkin_utd

it could simply be done like in Rugby where the referee decides to ask for a review of a certain aspect and limit it to stuff that has a yes/ no answer. No automatic video ref. No wildcards for the teams to ask for a video review.
i.e. the referee can ask whether a certain player was offside before a goal, was there contact in a tackle, was a tackle inside or outside the box etc etc. Stuff where a fact can be established without requiring any intrepretation or judgement from the video reviewer.

for all those examples the ball would have gone dead anyhow and the referee is still using his judgement and theres little enough (extra) time spent in the analysing of the aspect of play that the referee is unsure of.

Not to mention that delays in Rugby in coming to a decision by the video ref is often as theres 30lads sitting on the ball so its hard to see whats happening or wheres the ball in the first place. In football it'd be different and clarifications should be much quicker in coming back. Sure sky are able to show within seconds if a ball is offside or a tackle was good or not.

Benimar

Two things:

1. The argument that it won't solve all problems is the greatest crock of BS going. At the moment referees get approximately 96% of major decisions correct (think thats the latest finding anyway), so we shouldn't implement a system that may get 99% of decision correct, because it won't get 100% spot on??!! That is spectacularly illogical.

2. It would be easy to 'limit' it to issues of fact - ball crossing the line, handball, offside etc. and have a system like the NFL whereby the referees decision is only overturned if the video evidence is indisputable.

uch

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It almost certainly can't be done quickly despite the earlier post about how it would take no longer than it currently takes to get the game restarted after a goal anyway.
A goal may have many query points ; Gerrard wins ball in midfield (possible foul), passes it to Downing who runs down the line (with a hint that it may have been out of touch) and crosses for Suarez (marginal onside/offside) who takes it down on his chest (or was it his arm) before scoring. This isn't going to get sorted in 40 seconds.

Whether it should be done or not is a different issue (personally I'm marginally in the No camp) but the Yes side coming out with garbage about how quick it'll be serves no-one. This will add a huge amount of time to the average game.

Now you're talking Garbage, if the play moved on in the first instance from Gerrard's possible foul, why would it need to be checked again if the ref was happy in the first place ?

ArmaniJeanss

uch wrote: »

Now you're talking Garbage, if the play moved on in the first instance from Gerrard's possible foul, why would it need to be checked again if the ref was happy in the first place ?

Why wouldn't it be checked again? I thought like that was the whole point of it, that the entire scoring play is reviewed to see what the referee might have missed or got wrong?

Fr Tod Umptious

dfx- wrote: »

What about something subjective in the build up, a 50/50 or 60/40 tackle say - something I would give if I was ref, but you wouldn't.

Generally speaking, if people want video technology, play cricket. And then complain about predictive technology like the last New Zealand v South Africa test series, where the version of Hawkeye was a joke or complain about whether the ball bounced or was caught..which no camera can reliably do.

From that cricket series, one of the best allrounders in cricket: 'Not convinced by predictive path'

http://www.eatsleepsport.com/cricket/hawk-eye-to-continue-in-nz-despite-row-1395697.html

Umpires should over-rule virtual path errors:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-south-africa-2012/content/story/557712.html

You would have a tight set of rules to determined what can and cannot be taken into account when determining if the goal should stand.
For example impeding a defender in the box may be grounds for ruling out the goal but a 50/50 tackle out the field in the build up may not.

And like in the NFL the evidence should be clear enough to overturn the original decision, otherwise the decision original stands.

8-10

The problem with this suggestion is that play would have be allowed to progress even if the linesman flags in order to give the attacking team the benefit of doubt to try and score a goal that can be verified later. This would negate the need for linesmen at all.

Benimar

8-10 wrote: »

The problem with this suggestion is that play would have be allowed to progress even if the linesman flags in order to give the attacking team the benefit of doubt to try and score a goal that can be verified later. This would negate the need for linesmen at all.

This is where tight rules come into play. Play only stops when the referee blows his whistle, so a linesman putting his flag up when a player runs onto a ball 30 yards from goal will see the referee blow up before he shoots. Maybe nothing can be done about that type of call.

However, if we just use the Suarez offside 'goal' against Everton recently as an example, in this case the ball was in the net before the referee blew his whistle, so could be reviewed. There would also have been indisputable evidence to overturn the linesmans offside flag.

Nobody is saying replay is perfect. It's not, but its better than no replay at all.

LuckyLloyd

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Whether it should be done or not is a different issue (personally I'm marginally in the No camp) but the Yes side coming out with garbage about how quick it'll be serves no-one. This will add a huge amount of time to the average game.

How many goals are there in the average game again?

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How many goals are there in the average game again?

2.7 has long been the figure at the top levels.

I think there would be more than 2.7 referrals per game though - basic human nature would be to err on the side of the goalscorer in a marginal handball/foul/offside decision, and let the TVMO correct the decision if needs be. As under the system proposed in this thread you can correct a mistakenly given goal but you can't correct a mistakenly disallowed goal (as the whistle has blown before the goal was scored).

LuckyLloyd

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

2.7 has long been the figure at the top levels.

I think there would be more than 2.7 referrals per game though - basic human nature would be to err on the side of the goalscorer in a marginal handball/foul/offside decision, and let the TVMO correct the decision if needs be. As under the system proposed in this thread you can correct a mistakenly given goal but you can't correct a mistakenly disallowed goal (as the whistle has blown before the goal was scored).

And fine. Implementing just that would make games fairer as a starting point.

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And fine. Implementing just that would make games fairer as a starting point.

Would it not lead to referees/linesmen giving most marginal decision to the attacking team though?

Which sounds OK in theory, but in practise would make it -EV to play an offside trap.
e.g., we catch you offside by 12 inches; but its so marginal that under the new rules the linesman keeps his flag down thinking that if you score the injustice will be overturned, whereas if he flags wrongly he is denying you your chance at goal.
But if you don't score then instead of us having a freekick for the offside we end up maybe defending a corner or a throwin, or having 'under pressure' possession deep in our own penalty box.
Therefore playing an offside trap becomes a less attractive option for defenses.

Fr Tod Umptious

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And fine. Implementing just that would make games fairer as a starting point.

Exactly

Confirm what has actually occurred not want may have occurred

LuckyLloyd

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Would it not lead to referees/linesmen giving most marginal decision to the attacking team though?

Which sounds OK in theory, but in practise would make it -EV to play an offside trap.
e.g., we catch you offside by 12 inches; but its so marginal that under the new rules the linesman keeps his flag down thinking that if you score the injustice will be overturned, whereas if he flags wrongly he is denying you your chance at goal.
But if you don't score then instead of us having a freekick for the offside we end up maybe defending a corner or a throwin, or having 'under pressure' possession deep in our own penalty box.
Therefore playing an offside trap becomes a less attractive option for defenses.

Is that what they are supposed to do now?

Mr Cumulonimbus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

As under the system proposed in this thread you can correct a mistakenly given goal but you can't correct a mistakenly disallowed goal (as the whistle has blown before the goal was scored).

Not quite understanding you here.

In the case of offside, if the whistle is blown after the goal is scored, the TVMO would allow a goal ruled out by what is shown to be an incorrect offside decision, and disallow a goal which is then shown to be offside. Yes?

Obviously if the whistle is blown before a goal is scored (regardless of whether it is offside or not) the ref's decision stands?

8-10

Benimar wrote: »

This is where tight rules come into play. Play only stops when the referee blows his whistle, so a linesman putting his flag up when a player runs onto a ball 30 yards from goal will see the referee blow up before he shoots. Maybe nothing can be done about that type of call.

However, if we just use the Suarez offside 'goal' against Everton recently as an example, in this case the ball was in the net before the referee blew his whistle, so could be reviewed. There would also have been indisputable evidence to overturn the linesmans offside flag.

Nobody is saying replay is perfect. It's not, but its better than no replay at all.

So we're ignoring cases where a player could be through 1 on 1 30yds out purely because the ref will blow before he can stick it away?

Won't this encourage players in those situations where they know its a tight call and they're a bit out to shoot as soon as the ball comes to them in the hope they score a screamer and the replay shows they're onside when it was played and they hit it before the whistle?

That would be my worry, that the rules would discourage players from playing normally and playing the whistle as they should.

The other 2 options I see with this introduced would be the following:

Onus on the linesman to flag or not depending on how confident he is about it, so if its tight keep the flag down and let play develop and suggest replay after. This would obviously be flawed in many ways, like degrading decision-making ability of assistant and encouraging them to refer more which makes them question themselves more. Also when does it get referred, only with a goal? What if the attacking team get a corner or throw from the attack?

Onus on referee to judge if the call was too tight and ignore flag in these situations to review later. However if they did this then suddenly the assistant has his flag up and is 'out of the game', thereby losing his input if there's a foul or another offside call later in the attack.

I don't know, I just know I don't like the idea and am struggling to rationalise the ideal system within which this proposed change would work.

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Is that what they are supposed to do now?

Meh, we both know thats not quite the way it works in practise otherwise just about no-one would be flagged offside by inches.
Feel free to address the logic (or lack of it if you wish) in the rest of what I've said in that post.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Not quite understanding you here.

In the case of offside, if the whistle is blown after the goal is scored, the TVMO would allow a goal ruled out by what is shown to be an incorrect offside decision, and disallow a goal which is then shown to be offside. Yes?

Obviously if the whistle is blown before a goal is scored (regardless of whether it is offside or not) the ref's decision stands?

My point being (that human nature being what it is) this would result in referees/linesman giving the bulk of such marginal offside/handball/foul decisions to the attacking team. As the injustice can only be reversed one way.

e.g., on week one of this rule a linesman would be slated for putting the flag up wrongly, and the pundits would point that he should have let play go on and let the TVMO correct the injustice if a goal was scored; from then on all linesman would err on the side of keeping the flag down because that way you don't get the abuse.

Benimar

8-10 wrote: »

So we're ignoring cases where a player could be through 1 on 1 30yds out purely because the ref will blow before he can stick it away?

No, we are not ignoring them. The referee will make a decision the same as before. That decision will be no worse than he would have made without video technology.

There is nothing in video technology that makes the current situation any worse, it won't fix every 'bad' decision but it will fix some of them.

Benimar

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Meh, we both know thats not quite the way it works in practise otherwise just about no-one would be flagged offside by inches.
Feel free to address the logic (or lack of it if you wish) in the rest of what I've said in that post.



My point being (that human nature being what it is) this would result in referees/linesman giving the bulk of such marginal offside/handball/foul decisions to the attacking team. As the injustice can only be reversed one way.

e.g., on week one of this rule a linesman would be slated for putting the flag up wrongly, and the pundits would point that he should have let play go on and let the TVMO correct the injustice if a goal was scored; from then on all linesman would err on the side of keeping the flag down because that way you don't get the abuse.

I would hope all injustices could only be reversed one way!! I'd hate to make it MORE unjust!

As for your second point I'm reminded of the expression 'if in doubt, put the ball in the net and we can discuss your options later'. If a goal is awarded and reviewed one of two things can happen - it is a legal goal and stands or it was not legal and is disallowed.

In BOTH cases the correct decision has been made. Therefore, it may actually be in the interest of fairness for the linesman to do what he is supposed to do anyway and give the attacker the benefit of the doubt.

LuckyLloyd

Benimar wrote: »

There is nothing in video technology that makes the current situation any worse, it won't fix every 'bad' decision but it will fix some of them.

This is the bottom line really.

Mr Cumulonimbus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

My point being (that human nature being what it is) this would result in referees/linesman giving the bulk of such marginal offside/handball/foul decisions to the attacking team. As the injustice can only be reversed one way.

e.g., on week one of this rule a linesman would be slated for putting the flag up wrongly, and the pundits would point that he should have let play go on and let the TVMO correct the injustice if a goal was scored; from then on all linesman would err on the side of keeping the flag down because that way you don't get the abuse.

Unfortunately, video replays can't cater for that. Personally I'd just like to see the correct decision given in the case of offside situations. Technology should be seen to support the officials, not rubbish their ability.

dfx-

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No, we're not.

Handball in the build up
Offside
Clear foul on a defender
Ball strayed out of play

Usual bull**** argument: "here's an edge case the application of video technology would not completely eradicate so lets stick our head in the sand and do nothing so".

Logic and reason the real victims in all of this - football fans have them beaten half to death at this stage.

One incident is more than enough, there's plenty of examples, even in your list. Intentional handball? 'Ball to hand'? I'm the video official, I could give maybe one penalty to Chelsea v Barcelona, others would give four. Who's right?

All you do is shift the onus of blame for the 'problem' from the referee to the video official.

Fr Tod Umptious

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Unfortunately, video replays can't cater for that. Personally I'd just like to see the correct decision given in the case of offside situations. Technology should be seen to support the officials, not rubbish their ability.

Exactly, that's why It should be used initially just to confirm goals that have been scored i.e just to confirm that the decision was correct.

Not to highlight something the an official missed that should have resulted in a goal.

PhiloCypher

I've always found it hilarious when people/fifa officials trot out the introduction of video technology would disrupt the flow of the game ****e like as if there isn't already a disruption every time there is a contentious decision and the refs surrounded by 20 bugeyed players venting their spleen . In the time it takes to get them to disperse the ref could easily have been given the yay or nay by an official watching replays on a monitor.

8-10

Benimar wrote: »

No, we are not ignoring them. The referee will make a decision the same as before. That decision will be no worse than he would have made without video technology.

Yes but as I said above would that situation not encourage players to shoot instantly before he makes the decision in the hope it goes in and there's a chance to refer?

So then we're teaching kids to beat the whistle instead of play the whistle

Benimar

8-10 wrote: »

Yes but as I said above would that situation not encourage players to shoot instantly before he makes the decision in the hope it goes in and there's a chance to refer?

So then we're teaching kids to beat the whistle instead of play the whistle

How many shots go in from 30 yards, seriously? Players wouldn't last long taking on crazy shots like that.

In most instances anyway, from that range, players have to run onto the ball or take a touch to set themselves, by which time the whistle will be blown.

The rule would cover the 'first touch' efforts that go in before anyone realises the linesman has flagged. If that includes 1 or 2 30 yard screamers a season then so be it, they are legal goals after all.

Beefy78

Everything in football that can be refereed by technology should be refereed by techology. Offsides are adjudicated by middle-aged men trying to look in two places at once and waving a piece of cloth when they think they've seen something because that was the height of technology when the game was invented. It is not any more.