Should technology be used for reds, yellows and penalty disputes?

CSF

Look, maybe if we were to outlaw rugby it might negate the need for technology naturally. It might not, but it is worth a try.

farna_boy

Two things:

1. People in this thread are severely underestimating the power of technology if they think a computer can't detect offside better than a linesman, including the case of interfering with play. At the very least using technology along with officials judgement would be ridiculously easy to implement.

2. I don't see a reason why technology can't be used in the case of a red card or harsh challenge. If it is a bad challenge, the player usually spends around 5 minutes rolling around/getting treatment anyway, so that time could be used to make the correct decision instead of everyone just having a chat.

Other things I wouldn't mind borrowing from Rugby:
No abuse towards referees
A stop clock. This would stop messing around with time wasting and allow us to watch 90 minutes of football and not 60 minutes of football, the other 30 minutes being free kicks, throws, goal kicks and refereeing decisions.

Richard Hillman

People get so infuriated with the mention of rugby. Some football fans get almost mentally unstable when a comparison is made of the sport :pac:

Anyhow IMO football can learn an awful lot from how the likes of American Football and Rugby have evolved to modernise itself alongside technology. Even a traditionally conservative sport like Cricket has used it extremely well. I cannot think of any sport that has bemoaned the introduction of technology to help with decision making. Football will always lag behind though. The game cursed with its governing body and the most conservative sports fans in the world. Trying to sell a modernity to football fans is as hard as trying to sell it to the Catholic Church.

CSF

Richard Hillman wrote: »

People get so infuriated with the mention of rugby. Some football fans get almost mentally unstable when a comparison is made of the sport :pac:

Anyhow IMO football can learn an awful lot from how the likes of American Football and Rugby have evolved to modernise itself alongside technology. Even a traditionally conservative sport like Cricket has used it extremely well. I cannot think of any sport that has bemoaned the introduction of technology to help with decision making. Football will always lag behind though. The game cursed with its governing body and the most conservative sports fans in the world. Trying to sell a modernity to football fans is as hard as trying to sell it to the Catholic Church.

Ah it's just rugby is really really crap.

inmyday

AgileMyth wrote: »

And thats your opinion. and, in my opinion, its ridiculous. 'We have to use technology because of the money'- Why? Why ruin a brilliant sport because theres a lot of money in it? How will that benefit the supporters?

Maybe if we don't introduce the use of technology the dickheads who are ruining football by pumping vast amounts of money into it will **** off and we can get back to watching a bit of football.

Also, as someone else said, rugby is a bad example. Because its ****.

Why are you so angry about this topic??? Relax there.
And I never said anyone had to like rugby.

How will you ruin football by having a video ref??? It only takes 20secs in tennis and rugby.

It will benefit the supporters by making the game fair! Like for instance the goal against france when Henry handled it.
And also every match supporters abuse refs, especially on boards. "the ref ruined the match with that decision" is a post I read in a lot of match threads.

What is wrong with helping the referee??? And they do need help.

dfx-

CSF wrote: »

Ah it's just rugby is really really crap.

Whilst I agree, the level of entertainment or skill in rugby or any other sport isn't really the topic.

AgileMyth

inmyday wrote: »

It will benefit the supporters by making the game fair! Like for instance the goal against france when Henry handled it.
And also every match supporters abuse refs, especially on boards. "the ref ruined the match with that decision" is a post I read in a lot of match threads.

Abusing refs is the whole point of football.

inmyday

AgileMyth wrote: »

Abusing refs is the whole point of football.

:rolleyes:
I see you are a lovely person!

Why dont you just debate the topic, instead of the above quote???

AgileMyth

inmyday wrote: »

Why dont you just debate the topic?

Grand so.

Its not in the benefit of supporters to take away an entertaining element of the game just because some other sports do it and the ogliarchs putting their money in want them to.

Guess it has to do with how you watch football really.
When you go to a game you don't have the benefit of skys multiple camera angles, therefore the game is open to your interpretation, as it is the referees and the other supporters. After the game you go to the pub with your friends and chat about the game. What you thought of various decisions. Was he offside, was it a penalty etc. I look forward to that as much as I do the games.

You can make outlandish claims (never a penalty!) safe in the knowledge that you won't be proven wrong until the highlight show is on.

Thats football. Thats a weekly ritual all over the world for football fans. Technology takes that aspect out and, in doing so, ruins football.

GLaDOS

AgileMyth wrote: »

Thats football. Thats a weekly ritual all over the world for football fans. Technology takes that aspect out and, in doing so, ruins football.

I'd rather the referee not make stupid mistakes that alter the result of a game unfairly. I watch football because I enjoy the sport, couldn't give a toss about debating decisions.

AgileMyth

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I'd rather the referee not make stupid mistakes that alter the result of a game unfairly. I watch football because I enjoy the sport, couldn't give a toss about debating decisions.

We'll see how you feel when the video ref overrules a bohs goal against the shamrocks.

GLaDOS

AgileMyth wrote: »

We'll see how you feel when the video ref overrules a bohs goal against the shamrocks.

Or when it overrules an incorrect Rovers penalty. Oh wait.

If a goal shouldn't stand, I've no problem with it being disallowed.

inmyday

AgileMyth wrote: »

Grand so.

Its not in the benefit of supporters to take away an entertaining element of the game just because some other sports do it and the ogliarchs putting their money in want them to.

Guess it has to do with how you watch football really.
When you go to a game you don't have the benefit of skys multiple camera angles, therefore the game is open to your interpretation, as it is the referees and the other supporters. After the game you go to the pub with your friends and chat about the game. What you thought of various decisions. Was he offside, was it a penalty etc. I look forward to that as much as I do the games.

You can make outlandish claims (never a penalty!) safe in the knowledge that you won't be proven wrong until the highlight show is on.

Thats football. Thats a weekly ritual all over the world for football fans. Technology takes that aspect out and, in doing so, ruins football.

Thanks, good to have a debate...
Anyway, I disagree. No it wont ruin football.

If I go to the pub with my friends after watching a game, I actually want to discuss the game of football, "he made a great pass for the second goal" "great skill by x", "what a save by y", "that defender made a poor mistake".... I dont want to talk about the ref, or a silly decision, I want chat about the sport itself, what the 22 players did.

I get entertained by the skill of the sport.

By your post, you actually enjoy slagging the ref, and assistants. How is that enjoyable?

inmyday

AgileMyth wrote: »

We'll see how you feel when the video ref overrules a bohs goal against the shamrocks.

Id rather my team wins fairly.

If its a goal, its a goal.

AgileMyth

inmyday wrote: »

Id rather my team wins fairly.

If its a goal, its a goal.

Its no less fair just because the ref didn't notice a slight offside. It wouldn't be an issue if football wasn't over-analysed. Watch the game, have the craic. These things will balance out anyway.

Gbear

If it's about having a discussions with your friends, why bother with linesmen?

I don't see how you can make an argument that limits the use of technology to improve the accuracy or reffing that doesn't apply to refereeing in general.

The point of refereeing is to see that the rules are adhered to.

It isn't to kinda see that they're sortof adhered to a bit.

dfx-

Referees are there to apply the laws of the game as they see it. It's a lot more grey than black or white.

nucker

I'm glad technology has come in for goals, but wondering if some refs or assistants might make an excuse not to allow goals though

nucker

Wow, for the first time goal line technology was used today/yesterday

DerekDGoldfish

nucker wrote: »

Wow, for the first time goal line technology was used today/yesterday

According to the BBC, they didnt get the judgement till the 6th minute of the second half when the goal was scored in the 24th minute. Now while I assume they would have been quicker if there was a big question if it was a goal or not I wonder what the actual lead time was and why there was such a dely passing on the info to the press.

Judgement if the first Italy goal was an OG or Astori goal in case it wasnt clear from the above.

Seaneh

Video tech could have saved Montolivo for a nonexistent red card today when Suarez jumpped on the ground with no contact and got Monto a second booking.

dfx-

Yeah, there needs to be an explanation why it took so long to come up with the definitive answer.

TaosHum

First time I seen Hawkeye being used for GAA yesterday. Took all of 5-10 seconds to determine whether the ball had went over the bar or went wide.

Can't imagine what held up determining who scored Italy's first.

ArmaniJeanss

TaosHum wrote: »

First time I seen Hawkeye being used for GAA yesterday. Took all of 5-10 seconds to determine whether the ball had went over the bar or went wide.

Can't imagine what held up determining who scored Italy's first.

Once 'is the ball over the line or not?' was declared instantly to the referee then nothing else is too important.

nucker

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Once 'is the ball over the line or not?' was declared instantly to the referee then nothing else is too important.

+1, the rest can be determined by other officials for determining who scored the goal

Richard Hillman

Can the goal line tech be used to determine if an offside player has poached what would have been a legal goal?


Something similar to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5gDJfFvObg

nucker

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Can the goal line tech be used to determine if an offside player has poached what would have been a legal goal?


Something similar to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5gDJfFvObg

It was only deemed offside because Nani was deemed to have been interfering with play, if Nani hadn't gone for it, Ronaldo would of still scored.

nucker

In a cricket match, Jonathan Trott was given out by the third umpire, wrongly
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/ashes-jonathan-trott-dismissal-gaffe-2046013

A very intriguing what happened yesterday

FutureGuy

The offside is an easy one to be honest. They just need to get players to get small chips implanted into their skin in specific points. I'm not saying everywhere on their body but just in the area that could potentially be ahead of a player. So if a player had one each inplanted in the thighs, the forearms and the forehead, you could say he is offside if all 5 register that he is offside. They could also have diodes that ligh up. Green if he is onside and red if he is offside. The best thing about this is that referees and commentators can tell immediately if he is offside or not, and there's no way a player can lie. The only problem is a player attempts to cheat the system by running backwards towards the goal.

Seriously, I'd have tech for goal line decisions and red cards where the ref didn't get a good look. That's it.

nucker

FutureGuy wrote: »

The offside is an easy one to be honest. They just need to get players to get small chips implanted into their skin in specific points. I'm not saying everywhere on their body but just in the area that could potentially be ahead of a player. So if a player had one each inplanted in the thighs, the forearms and the forehead, you could say he is offside if all 5 register that he is offside. They could also have diodes that ligh up. Green if he is onside and red if he is offside. The best thing about this is that referees and commentators can tell immediately if he is offside or not, and there's no way a player can lie. The only problem is a player attempts to cheat the system by running backwards towards the goal.

Seriously, I'd have tech for goal line decisions and red cards where the ref didn't get a good look. That's it.

Nah, I can't see chips being implanted in skin, maybe their boots or socks

dfx-

nucker wrote: »

In a cricket match, Jonathan Trott was given out by the third umpire, wrongly
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/ashes-jonathan-trott-dismissal-gaffe-2046013

A very intriguing what happened yesterday

Also a debatable call in the Australian innings too. Both decided by the umpire in the gantry, regardless of technology

nucker

A huge kerfuffle in cricket about the DRS because of its over use in cricket
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/bid-to-fix-broken-review-system/story-e6frg6n6-1226693838219

dfx-

HotSpot is the major issue.

And the balance between backing the umpire and there being sufficient evidence to overturn original decisions..

Richard Hillman

Hot spot seemed a bit off but as far as I remember, no decisions were overturned due to it. So it didn't really change the game if DRS were not in place. Snicko seems the most accurate but takes too long to work.