Football to Trial TV Referral System

CSF · 08-09-2014 4:31pm #1

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29109481

Personally, as someone who goes to matches regularly, both here and abroad, I'm massively against the idea of slowing the game down like this.

It is all well and good when you're at home with replays and analysis keeping you interested, but for me, this is the beginning in a long list of blows for the people who are the lifeblood of the game.

The only reason that the goalline technology was palatable was the fact that it was instantaneous, this is anything but.

All it is, is Blatter making it look like he is trying to create change in football when going for election (and he certainly wouldn't want to target something actually bad in football such as racism), before a few more years of sticking his head in the sand.

harpstilidie · 08-09-2014 4:35pm

If they are going to start that craic they need to have some way of stopping the time like they do in Rugby. There is enough stoppages in play without another!

SuperTortoise · 08-09-2014 4:36pm

They are 'Americanising' the game....sigh.

Agent Coulson · 08-09-2014 4:38pm

Blatter wanting votes and money but mostly money would be my guess as he already has enough dirt (allegedly) on everyone to get the votes.

100k for every ad shown on replay.

dfx- · 08-09-2014 4:42pm

It is all about Blatter's re-election you'd hope but the fear would be that he'd implement it before the election.

I'm also very much against it.

LuckyLloyd · 08-09-2014 4:51pm

Yay, about time!!

CSF · 08-09-2014 4:55pm

I should have put a poll in here, am I stil able to edit and if so how?

CSF · 08-09-2014 5:10pm

Poll added with help from dfx

Fescue · 08-09-2014 5:22pm

The time and effort should be put into producing better referees and assistant referees. Improving the performance of the refereeing team and their cohesion in managing the game.

darced · 08-09-2014 5:33pm

This post has been deleted.

Richard Hillman · 08-09-2014 5:40pm

I am very much for this. 1 challenge for each manager in each half. I think it should only be introduced for things in the box and a certain amount of seconds before a goal. 10 seconds seems reasonable.

It would be tough to pass though. We all think of FIFA as being extremely conservative in terms of change but The Northern Irish and the Welsh FA's are the Sharia Law of the footballing rule makers. FIFA and the English FA are progressive compared to the guys. FIFA would need the English and the Scottish to agree to it.

CSF · 08-09-2014 5:45pm

darced wrote: »

At last it would be great to move football into the 21st century,one challenge a half will make little difference to the flow of a game and might even add some extra excitement.

It will make a pretty big difference to the guys at the match

Richard Hillman · 08-09-2014 5:48pm

CSF wrote: »

It will make a pretty big difference to the guys at the match

Yes it will be a great opportunity to go for a wizz or get a hot dog

CSF · 08-09-2014 5:51pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes it will be a great opportunity to go for a wizz or get a hot dog

But not really

mayordenis · 08-09-2014 5:55pm

CSF wrote: »

It will make a pretty big difference to the guys at the match

I'd rather the game get stopped for a minute for a definitive answer on a big call than have a minute wasted where the ref is surrounded by both teams shouting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QPJoRWz8Sc

CSF · 08-09-2014 5:57pm

mayordenis wrote: »

I'd rather the game get stopped for a minute for a definitive answer on a big call than have a minute wasted where the ref is surrounded by both teams shouting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QPJoRWz8Sc

That which any decent referee ends in a second or 2 anyway.

Also, the delay will be significantly longer than 60 seconds anyway

08-09-2014 6:00pm

Long overdue.

Once there are certain restrictions per team I'm all for it.

CSF · 08-09-2014 6:08pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Long overdue.

Once there are certain restrictions per team I'm all for it.

In reality if you're talking about managers using this to their entitlement, you could well be talking about adding 15 minutes + onto the match, take how long it takes the rugby video refs to come to a decision, add the fact that the referee is to be involved, and multiply that by 4.

Not even remotely fair on those in the stand.

Fescue · 08-09-2014 6:08pm

I prefer to leave the flow of the game as it is. I can see coaches using this to halt the momentum of the opposition during periods of pressure. I can't see how it wouldn't take up 2/3 minutes of the game. How many uses do you get?

I would be in favour of retrospective action. For instance, if there is a incidence of diving in the game, if this is sited by the opposition manager after the game, then said player could be banned for 3 games.

CSF · 08-09-2014 6:10pm

Fescue wrote: »

I prefer to leave the flow of the game as it is. I can see coaches using this to halt the momentum of the opposition during periods of pressure. I can't see how it wouldn't take up 2/3 minutes of the game. How many uses do you get?

I would be in favour of retrospective action. For instance, if there is a incidence of diving in the game, if this is sited by the opposition manager after the game, then said player could be banned for 3 games.

I agree, allowing video panels to retrospectively address more things with more freedom is definitely the way forward

Gbear · 08-09-2014 6:11pm

I think video refs are a must in general but I'm really not sold on a challenge system.

There needs to be a systematic improvement in elements of refereeing decision making that are particularly open to error - offside, for example, should be completely automated.

There are already plenty of stoppages in games that could have video refereeing seamlessly added.
For example, after the ref blows the whistle for a goal, penalty or foul a video ref could automatically have a look over the preceding video and make his own judgement.
There's normally 30-90 seconds of faffing about after these sorts of events anyway. If necessary they could a have a timer to limit the amount of time given to the video ref to come to a decision and otherwise the original decision stands (if it's that tough a decision then the ref's original decision must've been fairly reasonable).

But having an interaction with one of the managers (with a challenge system) changes it from being a neutral interaction between the officials to another way to try to game the system to one team's advantage.

Fundamentally, if the goal is 1) more accurate refereeing but 2) without overly long delays, I don't think the challenge system is the right way to go. By having a limit on the number it possibly satisfies the 2nd element but I don't think it would necessarily improve the 1st very much.

It's worth testing but I can't help but feel that it's a hamfisted approach to the problem that has more to do with commercial motivations than football ones.

CSF · 08-09-2014 6:13pm

Gbear wrote: »

I think video refs are a must in general but I'm really not sold on a challenge system.

There needs to be a systematic improvement in elements of refereeing decision making that are particularly open to error - offside, for example, should be completely automated.

There are already plenty of stoppages in games that could have video refereeing seamlessly added.
For example, after the ref blows the whistle for a goal, penalty or foul a video ref could automatically have a look over the preceding video and make his own judgement.
There's normally 30-90 seconds of faffing about after these sorts of events anyway. If necessary they could a have a timer to limit the amount of time given to the video ref to come to a decision and otherwise the original decision stands (if it's that tough a decision then the ref's original decision must've been fairly reasonable).

But having an interaction with one of the managers (with a challenge system) changes it from being a neutral interaction between the officials to another way to try to game the system to one team's advantage.

Fundamentally, if the goal is 1) more accurate refereeing but 2) without overly long delays, I don't think the challenge system is the right way to go. By having a limit on the number it possibly satisfies the 2nd element but I don't think it would necessarily improve the 1st very much.

It's worth testing but I can't help but feel that it's a hamfisted approach to the problem that has more to do with commercial motivations than football ones.

That 30-90 seconds of faffing about isn't removed here, that's in addition to this.

Fescue · 08-09-2014 6:16pm

Even if you do make a referral, so many of the incidents that take place are open to interpretation that a 30 second video review may not resolve the situation. Especially when it comes to simulation.

08-09-2014 6:24pm

CSF wrote: »

In reality if you're talking about managers using this to their entitlement, you could well be talking about adding 15 minutes + onto the match, take how long it takes the rugby video refs to come to a decision, add the fact that the referee is to be involved, and multiply that by 4.

Not even remotely fair on those in the stand.

15 mins? I'd be surprised if it were that long tbh. If it's implemented properly it could be done quicker than that surely.

I'd go the odd match myself and would certainly rather the major calls were correct rather than losing a game by a dodgy call by the ref. An extra 10 mins or so in the stand is hardly going to kill anyone

TheCitizen · 08-09-2014 6:25pm

I think it's a great idea. Whether it's to do with Blatter's re-election is another separate issue. The game does get held up all the time for injuries, holding it up for one referral for each team per half wont have an adverse affect, and the hold up for a referral will be a suspense filled hold up. As long they're quick and efficient with the verdict, it's a good idea. It'll only be available for matches with TV facilities, but that's the same as with rugby.

CSF · 08-09-2014 6:30pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

15 mins? I'd be surprised if it were that long tbh. If it's implemented properly it could be done quicker than that surely.

I'd go the odd match myself and would certainly rather the major calls were correct rather than losing a game by a dodgy call by the ref. An extra 10 mins or so in the stand is hardly going to kill anyone

3-4 mins x 4 IMO.

It's not going to kill anyone, but it's really annoying and unfair.

TheCitizen · 08-09-2014 6:32pm

CSF wrote: »

3-4 mins x 4 IMO.

It's not going to kill anyone, but it's really annoying and unfair.

Unfair on who? The fans sitting in the stand? They'll be eagerly awaiting the verdict.

08-09-2014 6:42pm

CSF wrote: »

3-4 mins x 4 IMO.

It's not going to kill anyone, but it's really annoying and unfair.

I'd imagine most decisions will be pretty clear cut. How many crop up that can't be identified by a few angles on replay? Not many

A quick signal to the ref/scoreboard via whatever means they use and bobs your uncle. I'd say the most would be 2 mins at the very max.

GLaDOS · 08-09-2014 6:42pm

Don't disagree with it on principle, though would want to know the actual details on how it would be implemented before I'd say I approve or not.

RED L4 0TH · 08-09-2014 6:45pm

I'd have tv replays just for goals which were disallowed for offside when they shouldn't have been, and also for goals scored which should have been ruled out for offside but weren't.

If the ball's in the net the game has to restart anyway, so the issue of the flow of play being disrupted doesn't really arise in this case.

AdamD · 08-09-2014 6:52pm

SuperTortoise wrote: »

They are 'Americanising' the game....sigh.

No they aren't, how have you come up with this bollox?

Gbear · 08-09-2014 6:57pm

CSF wrote: »

That 30-90 seconds of faffing about isn't removed here, that's in addition to this.

If your video ref is working concurrently with the aboutfaffery then it would limit the time wasted. That's a technical problem either way. Either it can be solved or it can't.

With a challenge system they mighn't have that though - it would depend on what decisions can be challenged.

The limit on time wasted would depend on the number of challenges that a coach would have but even if they successfully changed a decision to the correct outcome you're still left with an ungainly pause stuffed into the middle of a game which flows an awful lot better than a lot of sports (rugby has started taking the piss with how often they call on the TMO).
I'm not sure the quite possibly marginal improvement in accuracy is worth disrupting the game in such a way.

It is of course possible that they could make it work without any disruption but I'd be very surprised.

SuperTortoise · 08-09-2014 6:59pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

A quick signal to the ref/scoreboard via whatever means they use and bobs your uncle. I'd say the most would be 2 mins at the very max.

They could chuck a yellow flag onto the pitch when they want to stop the game!, and the ref should wear black and white striped uniform, and maybe next year we'll give the players helmets and kneepads to protect themselves.:cool:

Richard Hillman · 08-09-2014 7:00pm

Does anybody have an example of a sport that brought in TV reviews and regretted it?

Gbear · 08-09-2014 7:01pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

I'd imagine most decisions will be pretty clear cut. How many crop up that can't be identified by a few angles on replay? Not many

A quick signal to the ref/scoreboard via whatever means they use and bobs your uncle. I'd say the most would be 2 mins at the very max.

It's worth contrasting it to rugby where you routinely have a dozen players in a tangle on the try line obstructing every camera angle.

That virtually never happens on the football pitch. Decisions about offside, handball and most fouls ought to be pretty much instantaneous.

SuperTortoise · 08-09-2014 7:09pm

AdamD wrote: »

No they aren't, how have you come up with this bollox?

Silver goal, timeouts, and now this, are a few examples, do you see any similarity to American sports?

AdamD · 08-09-2014 7:12pm

SuperTortoise wrote: »

Silver goal, timeouts, and now this, are a few examples, do you see any similarity to American sports?

Timeouts?? Timeouts don't exist in soccer.

RichardoKhan · 08-09-2014 7:13pm

More smoke & mirrors to keep us off the REAL scent........Blatter should just come over here & join either FF or FG. He's that good at it.....

salmocab · 08-09-2014 7:14pm

It could start with the obvious stuff, like goal or not although this is already done quite well, then if a goal is scored on a tight offside the linesman could make the ref aware he wasn't 100% on the offside and then fouls inside or outside the box or even was it a foul or did the grown man dive like a cheating piece of sh1t. So long as the parameters are tight it shouldn't take too much time. Great use in last seasons 6 nations was ref giving a yellow card for a shoulder charge then as the player headed off to the sin bin the ref looked at the big screen called him back and gave him a red, it can lead to swift justice which is the best kind of deterrent.

CSF · 08-09-2014 7:21pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

Unfair on who? The fans sitting in the stand? They'll be eagerly awaiting the verdict.

This does not seem at all likely to me. I can't see matchgoing fans being taken by this at all and getting frustrated all the more every time it happens.

AdamD · 08-09-2014 7:23pm

CSF wrote: »

This does not seem at all likely to me. I can't see matchgoing fans being taken by this at all and getting frustrated all the more every time it happens.

Its all part of the fun in every other sport that uses it.

CSF · 08-09-2014 7:24pm

AdamD wrote: »

Its all part of the fun in every other sport that uses it.

Football crowds are very different to your average tennis or rugby crowd.

SuperTortoise · 08-09-2014 7:24pm

AdamD wrote: »

Timeouts?? Timeouts don't exist in soccer.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2014/m=6/news=a-cool-first-and-a-historic-triumph-2390305.html

AdamD · 08-09-2014 7:27pm

SuperTortoise wrote: »

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2014/m=6/news=a-cool-first-and-a-historic-triumph-2390305.html

Jesus Christ. I suggest you go find out what a time out from an American sport is, because that certainly wasn't the same.

MagicMarker · 08-09-2014 7:44pm

I can't see how anyone could be against this.

CSF · 08-09-2014 7:45pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

I can't see how anyone could be against this.

You've obviously not thought it through at much length then.

SuperTortoise · 08-09-2014 7:46pm

AdamD wrote: »

Jesus Christ. I suggest you go find out what a time out from an American sport is, because that certainly wasn't the same.

Maybe it's you who needs to brush up your knoledge of American sports if you can't see a similarity between them.
Football is the number one sport in the world and has been for decades, the sport does'nt need another excuse to interupt play, there's already too much of it going on now.

MagicMarker · 08-09-2014 7:50pm

CSF wrote: »

You've obviously not thought it through at much length then.

Well when the best reason against it you can come with is "people in the stands won't like waiting a couple of extra minutes" then there's not really much thought required on my part.

08-09-2014 7:52pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well when the best reason against it you can come with is "people in the stands won't like waiting a couple of extra minutes" then there's not really much thought required on my part.

At least he is arguing a reason whether you agree with it or not.

Avada · 08-09-2014 7:55pm

The one question I'd have is about offsides. Player clean through on goal, linesman flags for offside and play is stopped. The manager then challenges the decision and it is overturned.

How could you come up with a fair way to restart play? Will linesmen stop calling tight offsides and leave the defending manager to challenge any goal scored?

Other than that, I'm actually in favour of it

AdamD · 08-09-2014 7:55pm

SuperTortoise wrote: »

Maybe it's you who needs to brush up your knoledge of American sports if you can't see a similarity between them.
Football is the number one sport in the world and has been for decades, the sport does'nt need another excuse to interupt play, there's already too much of it going on now.

That was a stop in play so the players could get water on board due to the extreme weather conditions.

Time-outs in American sports are strategic moves available for the teams to change tactics/take a breather/disrupt momentum. Entirely different.

How you've equated stopping for water as 'Americanising' the sport is entirely beyond me.

Football to Trial TV Referral System

Are you in favour? 67 votes

Comments