Football to Trial TV Referral System

DerekDGoldfish

I am against this, it will slow the game significantly.

I can live with increased use of video review post match for actions the ref didn't catch or actions he may not have seen enough of to make a proper decision, increasing yellows to reds where necessary, banning players for obvious simulation etc.

I don't want to see ref challenges becoming another tool in the time wasting managers aresnal, the cost of the number of camera angles to make video refs could only be born by a handful of leagues in the world.

FIFA, UEFA, FA, FAI ETC should increase significantly the pay and training to referees making it a more appealing profession to go into, more full time refs at the top, training refs at lower level on non-match days etc.

Many decisions in football particularly are argued over for ages after the match despite panalists/viewers seeing dozens of replays, there would still be many decisions that are "wrong" from the point of view of one set of fans and we would have further ruined the flow of the game to get a few more 50/50 decisions right, I dont think it is worth it.

Guy:Incognito

CSF wrote: »

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

They cant retrospectively change the thing that affects the match the most, goals.

Retrospectively banning Rooney say after a game where UTD just beat Sunderland leaving them in the relegation zone doesn't help Sunderland. If anything it could be a hinderance if UTD are playing a team Sunderland are fighting with at the bottom next.

I'm in favour of retrospective bannings btw, but in addition to sorting out as much as possible during the game.

Guy:Incognito

CSF wrote: »

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

It's not, its instead of. Why would the players need to be surrounding and argueing with the ref if the video ref is in the process of sorting it?

Fr Tod Umptious

Richard Hillman wrote: »

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

NFL had video review in the 80s and early 90s but then ditched it in 92 and reintroduced it in 99.

Not sure why they ditched it.

By the way in this FIFA plan there has to be a sanction for managers making spurious challenges.

~Rebel~

I dont know why anyone would be against this...of course it should be trialled.

If it's good, use it. If it's bad, don't use it. After it's trialled we'll know, instead of everyone just using the same theoretical for and against's.

Something like this, in a sport as fluid as football will need testing to get right. The initial tests will probably have pro's and con's. They can then work on improving the pro's, and removing the con's.

Guy:Incognito

rarnes1 wrote: »

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

TBH its just coming across as CSF making up any ridiculous story to try shoot down the proposal because he doesn't agree with it. If that's the best one then theres not much to stop this coming in.TBH if people had the opposite view I'd be inclined to agree. The first few months people will like it out of a sense of suspense and curiosity . After that they'll be hoping a decision against their team is overturned and vice versa.

Richard Hillman

Stop the clock when it goes to a review. That will end the time wasting theory.


The only genuine argument I can see against it is that refs will cower out of making decisions and let the managers review sort it out. We have a special kind of referee in football where they see lots of infringements that they are happy to ignore because of the fear of making a decision. Holding in the box at set pieces being the prime example. Giving them the fall back of a review could make them increasingly fearful of making decisions.

Guy:Incognito

They should have been running a clock stopping system before. Stop it when the refs whistle goes and start it when he blows again. They made a big thing of saying they were adding on time for time wasting, subs etc a few years back but as it is if they add on even half the amount that is wasted theyre doing well.

DerekDGoldfish

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They should have been running a clock stopping system before. Stop it when the refs whistle goes and start it when he blows again. They made a big thing of saying they were adding on time for time wasting, subs etc a few years back but as it is if they add on even half the amount that is wasted theyre doing well.

Not to derail the thread completely, but just to point out I'm not against all changes in football.

Former Italy boss Prandelli suggested reducing games to 35 mins a half but stopping the clock for stoppages. I would be in favor of this being trialed as it would make some elements of time wasting pointless (obviously teams could still keep it in the corner etc) and could be rolled out in all leagues without much hassle.

Guy:Incognito

DerekDGoldfish wrote: »

(obviously teams could still keep it in the corner etc) .

I'd be in favour of a 5 metre no mans land around th ecorner flag. If you go in there anything goes :-). I ****ing hate when teams do that, even ones I support.

~Rebel~

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'd be in favour of a 5 metre no mans land around th ecorner flag. If you go in there anything goes :-). I ****ing hate when teams do that, even ones I support.

Fans can throw weapons in there too, all fair game once they remain in the circle.

Ronin247

American Football has a rule where if you challenge and are wrong then you lose a timeout, if you challenge in the wrong you lose a substitution would be a reasonable addition to soccer I think.

Someone once said the reason "soccer" has never really gained a massive foothold in America is due to the 45 minutes without an ad break, as the yanks have the attention span of goldfish. I would hate to see this become a major interuption to games like in American football where 5 minutes of play can take half an hour

darced

This post has been deleted.

Gbear

DerekDGoldfish wrote: »

FIFA, UEFA, FA, FAI ETC should increase significantly the pay and training to referees making it a more appealing profession to go into, more full time refs at the top, training refs at lower level on non-match days etc.

Short of genetic engineering there's not much else that can be done.

We're not short of quality referees. We're limited by human error and the only thing that can circumvent that is technology.

anncoates

CSF wrote: »

Not even remotely fair on those in the stand.

You're misjudging the majority demographic here. It will just mean time for another pint or to put on the kettle.

osarusan

With some fairly limiting conditions on its use, and maybe some hefty punishment for its misuse, I would be interested in seeing it trialled.

It would all depend on the conditions though, because football isn't like tennis, where it's an objective matter of in or out, or rugby where it's a relatively objective matter of grounding or not, forward pass or not, etc.

I mean, if there is a referral for any corner floated into the box, there will be at least two or three fouls from either side, some of which should probably be penalties. Do you allow it for situations like this or not?

I was thinking that it could be used to check the legality of a goal (one referral per game), but then we're back to the same situation regarding goals from corners.

Lucas Hood

Random_Name wrote: »

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

Don't have linesmen call for offsides , let the team play on and if they score go back check the tape to see if it was offside or not and then award a goal or a free kick out.

Hyzepher

Some of you guys should research how much time in a typical soccer match is actually spend playing football. The number of stoppages in a game is now so high that it would make little or no impact to introduce this. In fact if done correctly it might reduce some of the crap that exists in the game now.

btw I f**king hate the stoppages due to an "injured" player - the kicking it out of touch situations. I swear there was an incident last night during the England/Swiss game where the Swiss insisted on the ball being kicked out by England - after a good 30 seconds where they continued an attack - when the player was already off the field as the incident happened right on the touchline.

Angle-shooting at its best

CSF

anncoates wrote: »

You're misjudging the majority demographic here. It will just mean time for another pint or to put on the kettle.

I'm aware. That doesn't make it ok.

CSF

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

TBH its just coming across as CSF making up any ridiculous story to try shoot down the proposal because he doesn't agree with it

Name one please.

CSF

Hyzepher wrote: »

Some of you guys should research how much time in a typical soccer match is actually spend playing football. The number of stoppages in a game is now so high that it would make little or no impact to introduce this. In fact if done correctly it might reduce some of the crap that exists in the game now.

btw I f**king hate the stoppages due to an "injured" player - the kicking it out of touch situations. I swear there was an incident last night during the England/Swiss game where the Swiss insisted on the ball being kicked out by England - after a good 30 seconds where they continued an attack - when the player was already off the field as the incident happened right on the touchline.

Angle-shooting at its best

On the contrary, the amount of stoppages is already really irritating without adding more potentially longer ones 4 times a game.

Hyzepher

But the point is that if the game already has natural stoppages of something like one every 30-60 secs then taking time to do a quick check isn't going to add a significant amount

dfx-

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Don't have linesmen call for offsides , let the team play on and if they score go back check the tape to see if it was offside or not and then award a goal or a free kick out.

what if there's two or three phases of last ditch defending between the ball over the top and the goal. Do we have to go through all that and then find out it was offside in the first place?

or do we have defences just let the ball in, save energy because they 'know' or feel he was off? Then find out he wasn't..

CSF

Hyzepher wrote: »

But the point is that if the game already has natural stoppages of something like one every 30-60 secs then taking time to do a quick check isn't going to add a significant amount

They aren't stoppages of that long. I'd estimate (and considering it is being trialed we'll have a much clearer view of how long it will take) based on rugby times (and the fact that this will be for less clearer offences than whether something was a try or no) added to the fact that the actual referee has to go to the TV screen rather than having a video referee in place, that this will take 3-4 minutes standard, with the possibility of longer for more complex issues.

Multiply that by 4 and it is a much more significant hindrance than things that we already hate like people feigning injury to slow down the game, and people timewasting.

You say that there are already these stoppages in the game as if the fans have largely gotten used to it and accepted it as a necessary. On the contrary, they get annoyed every time.

dfx-

Hyzepher wrote: »

Some of you guys should research how much time in a typical soccer match is actually spend playing football. The number of stoppages in a game is now so high that it would make little or no impact to introduce this. In fact if done correctly it might reduce some of the crap that exists in the game now.

Ball is in play for 50-60 minutes I think on average. How much of the other 30 minutes is spent naturally in football - delivery of setpieces, kickouts, physios, walking off the pitch when injured

Add another set of delays on top of it. It only increases the proportion of time spent not playing football.

bucketybuck

Hyzepher wrote: »

But the point is that if the game already has natural stoppages of something like one every 30-60 secs then taking time to do a quick check isn't going to add a significant amount

Anybody who thinks it is going to be a quick check is just kidding themselves. You just need to look at Rugby at the minute, its gotten bloody ridiculous with the officals going to the TMO for every little decision and waiting minutes at a time for the TMO to make a call on many very marginal decisions. Do we really want to start down that road?

There have been numerous examples over the years of incidents where pundits have spent hours replaying the videos from every conceivable angle and still couldn't agree on whether it was offside/handball/ball to hand/contact made etc etc. If a challenge is made in a soccer match the referee is going to take ages poring over the replays because he knows he has to get it right or he will be vilified by the predatory media and the rabid fanbase. And when the "one challenge per game" becomes three challenges per game" its only going to get worse.

I don't like the slippery slope argument but sometimes it actually is appropriate, and this is one of those cases. I predict that in a few years we will have multiple challenges per game, ad breaks during the challenges, the challenges will take minutes at a time and at the end of it all we will still have people complaining that the wrong calls were made.

TheCitizen

bucketybuck wrote: »

Anybody who thinks it is going to be a quick check is just kidding themselves. You just need to look at Rugby at the minute, its gotten bloody ridiculous with the officals going to the TMO for every little decision and waiting minutes at a time for the TMO to make a call on many very marginal decisions. Do we really want to start down that road?

There have been numerous examples over the years of incidents where pundits have spent hours replaying the videos from every conceivable angle and still couldn't agree on whether it was offside/handball/ball to hand/contact made etc etc. If a challenge is made in a soccer match the referee is going to take ages poring over the replays because he knows he has to get it right or he will be vilified by the predatory media and the rabid fanbase. And when the "one challenge per game" becomes three challenges per game" its only going to get worse.

I don't like the slippery slope argument but sometimes it actually is appropriate, and this is one of those cases. I predict that in a few years we will have multiple challenges per game, ad breaks during the challenges, the challenges will take minutes at a time and at the end of it all we will still have people complaining that the wrong calls were made.

Why should there be a slippery slope? A referral for each team in each half max, why would they increase it? It would be up to the managers to use it wisely, 'cos they'd only get one referral chance in each half.

A manager may start using it towards end of matches - if they haven't used it yet - just to waste time and break up a game, but they do that with substitutions already. There's pros and cons to it, but if its set up and implemented properly, the pros outweigh the cons.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument where referrals would increase at all, no reason for that to happen.

RasTa

Just get the ref to stop his clock, like in rugby. Might need to install big screen TV's in stadiums to keep fans entertained is the only issue I can see.

CSF

TheCitizen wrote: »

Why should there be a slippery slope? A referral for each team in each half max, why would they increase it? It would be up to the managers to use it wisely, 'cos they'd only get one referral chance in each half.

A manager may start using it towards end of matches - if they haven't used it yet - just to waste time and break up a game, but they do that with substitutions already. There's pros and cons to it, but if its set up and implemented properly, the pros outweigh the cons.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument where referrals would increase at all, no reason for that to happen.

And the problem is as it was with other arguments put forward IMO, now managers are able to waste time and break up a game even more, with (by my estimations which may or may not be accurate) a 3 minute break for the challenge, AND the substitution.

One does not eliminate the other. That the problem with games being slowed down unnecessarily existed already is not a good excuse to slow it down further. The game needs to be made more flowing, not less.

RichardoKhan

Inherently against this BUT will swap it for a end to the obvious time wasting tactic of very late substitutions & the slow walk of the filed clapping the fans. Always thought that the clock should stop during the substitution. Its a break in play every other break more or less stops the clock.

Leroy42

Watching some NFL last night. An incident happened, the refs didn't spot it and the play continued. After the play they quickly rewatched the play and deemed he was out of bounds/stopped whatever. Took an extra 30 secs.

In the event that the ref can't decide, then benefit of doubt lies with the original decision. Basically, like in cricket, you need evidence that the original decision was wrong, not just evidence that another decision could have been made. There is a big difference.

The 4th official could do it. Look at the event and give his opinion to the ref. The ref should then be allowed to either change his mind or go with his original decision.

I can't see a coach using it just to waste time. The incident would need to be pretty borderline to take any amount of time to review. And of oucrse by using it they would risk not having it when it actually mattered.

bucketybuck

TheCitizen wrote: »

Why should there be a slippery slope? A referral for each team in each half max, why would they increase it?

Why would they increase it? Same reason they would introduce it. And you say there is no slippery slope when already in this conversation we have went from one challenge per game to one per half.

Its not even hard to hypothesize a situation where a valid challenge is made early in the 2nd half, then another incident occurs that costs a team the game but because they had already used their challenge they can't do anything about it.

That situation will occur again and again, no question about it, and if you think there won't be an outcry every time complaining that one challenge is not enough then you would be very incorrect.

If the concept of challenges is introduced at all, then it will remain as "one" challenge for about five minutes, mark my words. It will be three challenges per team very quickly.

bucketybuck

Leroy42 wrote: »

Watching some NFL last night. An incident happened, the refs didn't spot it and the play continued. After the play they quickly rewatched the play and deemed he was out of bounds/stopped whatever. Took an extra 30 secs.

You are talking about a game where the clock stops after the play regardless of whether there was an incident or not. This is not really relevant to soccer.

TheCitizen

bucketybuck wrote: »

Why would they increase it? Same reason they would introduce it. And you say there is no slippery slope when already in this conversation we have went from one challenge per game to one per half.

Its not even hard to hypothesize a situation where a valid challenge is made early in the 2nd half, then another incident occurs that costs a team the game but because they had already used their challenge they can't do anything about it.

That situation will occur again and again, no question about it, and if you think there won't be an outcry every time complaining that one challenge is not enough then you would be very incorrect.

If the concept of challenges is introduced at all, then it will remain as "one" challenge for about five minutes, mark my words. It will be three challenges per team very quickly.

The reason I mentioned one challenge in each half per team is because I think that's what Blatter's initial proposal is. American football has one flag on the play in each half with a 3rd challenge allowed if both previous challenges were overturned in their favour. I would keep it to just 1 in each half as proposed.

They will stipulate clearly how many challenges will be allowed and there is no reason to increase it thereafter if it is introduced. Managers will have to choose wisely, 'cos if they use up their challenge and another contentious incident occurs, they can do nowt about it.

It wont increase beyond 1 in each half if that is the way it's introduced, no question about it. No-one will want more than that, it'd be in no-ones interest to have loads of challenges.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

It's a great idea in theory as it simply makes the game fairer.

Providing the clock is stopped while the video ref reaches a decision and once the video ref isn't on the touchline as you don't want Mourinho up bitching into his face while he reviews a replay.

Hawkeye in the GAA actually adds to the excitement of a game.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

TheCitizen wrote: »

The reason I mentioned one challenge in each half per team is because I think that's what Blatter's initial proposal is. American football has one flag on the play in each half with a 3rd challenge allowed if both previous challenges were overturned in their favour. I would keep it to just 1 in each half as proposed.

They will stipulate clearly how many challenges will be allowed and there is no reason to increase it thereafter if it is introduced. Managers will have to choose wisely, 'cos if they use up their challenge and another contentious incident occurs, they can do nowt about it.

It wont increase beyond 1 in each half if that is the way it's introduced, no question about it. No-one will want more than that, it'd be in no-ones interest to have loads of challenges.

If your challenge is successful I think it would be only fair that you can keep your one challenge.

Guy:Incognito

CSF wrote: »

Name one please.

This annoying the people in the crowd rubbish.

TheCitizen

CSF wrote: »

And the problem is as it was with other arguments put forward IMO, now managers are able to waste time and break up a game even more, with (by my estimations which may or may not be accurate) a 3 minute break for the challenge, AND the substitution.

One does not eliminate the other. That the problem with games being slowed down unnecessarily existed already is not a good excuse to slow it down further. The game needs to be made more flowing, not less.

There was a time only one sub was allowed and only one sub on the bench to choose from. I think it was a good move that more subs are allowed now even though managers abuse it at times towards the end of games to waste time and break up the play.

Nah. Soccer has been slow to embrace technology for some reason and no doubt Blatter is coming up with it now to help win support for his re-election. However, you can't stop the tide, the technology is already there, it will be used sooner or later. As long as they implement it the referral system properly, it will be a great thing for soccer. Best thing since they got rid of the back pass.

Leroy42

bucketybuck wrote: »

You are talking about a game where the clock stops after the play regardless of whether there was an incident or not. This is not really relevant to soccer.

the clock doesn't stop after every play, but yes it is a different game in terms of timing and the flow.

But the game already stops for these incidents. Players hang around the ref, managers chase the 4th official. Players lay down on the turf as if hit by a sniper.

In terms of the amount of calls, each team could get one a half, if it is succesful then they keep it, if it is not then they lose it. So increasing the amount isn't required, the manager just needs to only apply for ones he knows are incorrect.

This would provide a self policing system as managers can't jsut ask for any decision to be reviewed as it would lose them the chance of actually calling on something later on.

Do people really think it better that a player can dive for a penalty, Henry can handle the ball or whatever and for the sake of thrirty seconds we just leave it at that?

Use the system they use in Rugby. A seperate official (or 4th official) reviews the available camera angles and make a view. He then tells the ref this and the ref can decide to accept or not. It still remains the choice of the ref. (although itf the 4th offical tells him there was no contact then he would be unlikely to no chance his mind).

Of course in a penalty claim siuation the ref must also be allowed to book the player for diving if that is the case, not just overturn the original decision.

In all of it, the key thing must be that there must be evidence that the original decision was incorrect, not just that another decision could have been made.

CSF

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

This annoying the people in the crowd rubbish.

Go on, make an actual point please. It might hurt your head a bit but it won't kill you.

CSF

TheCitizen wrote: »

There was a time only one sub was allowed and only one sub on the bench to choose from. I think it was a good move that more subs are allowed now even though managers abuse it at times towards the end of games to waste time and break up the play.

Nah. Soccer has been slow to embrace technology for some reason and no doubt Blatter is coming up with it now to help win support for his re-election. However, you can't stop the tide, the technology is already there, it will be used sooner or later. As long as they implement it the referral system properly, it will be a great thing for soccer. Best thing since they got rid of the back pass.

I agree, that introducing more substitutes was a good idea. I don't think that has anything really in common with this idea though other than that the game stops for it, I get that that's your point but I don't think it is that valid of one. I'm not saying the game should never stop. I think stops should be minimised, and adding what in my opinion could be 15 minutes per game if used to the max (which I'm certain managers would if you listen to their post match interviews where they always have an issue with something) just wouldn't do.

I think you can stop the tide though, you just don't do it. A policy that has been working ridiculously well upto now, and to be honest until I read that it was being trialled, I wasn't really of the opinion that it would be. Football has been ridiculously enjoyable for a long time without it so it is hardly a must or anything like that.

Will I Amnt

CSF wrote: »

Go on, make an actual point please. It might hurt your head a bit but it won't kill you.

The people in the crowd are not all you. For every person it will annoy there could be 3 or 4 it doesn't. You can't speak for them as a whole.

CSF

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The people in the crowd are not all you. For every person it will annoy there could be 3 or 4 it doesn't. You can't speak for them as a whole.

I'm not speaking for anyone. I'm stating an opinion, based on observations (which may be as true or untrue as any of the observations made by other people on here) I've made when at football matches all over the world.

TheCitizen

CSF wrote: »

I agree, that introducing more substitutes was a good idea. I don't think that has anything really in common with this idea though other than that the game stops for it, I get that that's your point but I don't think it is that valid of one. I'm not saying the game should never stop. I think stops should be minimised, and adding what in my opinion could be 15 minutes per game if used to the max (which I'm certain managers would if you listen to their post match interviews where they always have an issue with something) just wouldn't do.

I think you can stop the tide though, you just don't do it. A policy that has been working ridiculously well upto now, and to be honest until I read that it was being trialled, I wasn't really of the opinion that it would be. Football has been ridiculously enjoyable for a long time without it so it is hardly a must or anything like that.

It is needed. The technology is already there, well past the time that a referral/challenge system was introduced.

Guy:Incognito

CSF wrote: »

Go on, make an actual point please. It might hurt your head a bit but it won't kill you.

Me make a point? The best you've managed so far is it would be unfair on the people in the crowd.

Is there another sport where the crowd fame out going "that was great but do you know what I hate? The delay where they disallowed a goal against my team fairly"

If players weren't wasting loads of time mouthing off at the ref complaining about decisions and delaying the game already then the time thing might has some tiny bit of a foundation.


Anyway. Theres no need to involve either team in the majority of cases. Things like offside should be getting looked at automatically by a video ref. Every time a ball is played through he should get a replay along the line of play stopped at the moment the pass is played. He'd know in 2-3 seconds if it's offside and can signal the ref. As said before. The clock should be stopped for incidents. If a player wants to roll around for 60 seconds then fine. It doesn't waste any time at all.

ArmaniJeanss

One flaw of the challenge system is that it can only work if the initial decisions are being given on a equitable basis.
So if the referee is giving all marginal decisions to the home team/big team/your particular 'hun' team (all things we think often happen at the moment) then it doesn't change a lot.

Marginal decisions are unlikely to be overturned anyway, so all it would mean is that the other team gets told 'if you think its a bad decision then challenge it' until such team as they appeal and then for future decisions they can be told 'well its your own fault for spunking your challenge so poorly'.
Meanwhile the big team carries on getting the marginals therefore not having to challenge.

I cautiously welcome it but its no nirvana system.

Will I Amnt

CSF wrote: »

I'm not speaking for anyone. I'm stating an opinion, based on observations (which may be as true or untrue as any of the observations made by other people on here) I've made when at football matches all over the world.

You said 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."

You're talking about people who give the referee a buildup to spraying some foam on the ground... and a cheer when he does it :pac:
Football fans like to be entertained, they like drama, the biggest talking point of the World Cup was a player biting another player.
This is just another form of drama, there'll be cheers, moans and groans to go with it and people will love and hate it like everything else.

I'd like to say I'm against it and it's more nonsense and it will result in intolerable stops and it's another Americanisation.

But if it reduces the chances of there being another Henry moment, have to say it may be a necessary step.

SantryRed

This is all about money and Blatter/FIFA making the game more attractive to American TV and companies for advertisements. You're kidding yourselves if you think it's for any other reason.

greendom

SantryRed wrote: »

This is all about money and Blatter/FIFA making the game more attractive to American TV and companies for advertisements. You're kidding yourselves if you think it's for any other reason.

to ensure he stays in his post with re-election next year.