Football to Trial TV Referral System

CSF

TheCitizen wrote: »

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

I don't agree that it is needed. Not arguing that the technology exists, nor that the technology wouldn't be effective. It is merely the time element and I could see this being time consuming which doesn't fit for a sport like football in the same way that it does for tennis, rugby or american football that by their very nature (not merely by ways implemented by participants to bend or take advantage of the rules) are stop start.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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.

The notion that because players already waste some time that it is no issue to waste even more, makes no sense to me. You probably wouldn't be that surprised to learn that I'm in favour of cutting those time wastes too.

Will I Amnt wrote: »

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.

These things aren't even the slightest bit comparable. One is a funny novelty, the other is a legitimate time drain.

LuckyLloyd

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.

The referee shouldn't be timekeeper. There should be a separate official tasked with monitoring the clock and stopping it as necessary, etc.

CSF

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The referee shouldn't be timekeeper. There should be a separate official tasked with monitoring the clock and stopping it as necessary, etc.

Interestingly enough, I'd be interested to see what time a match would end if that was the case, as in theory you'd have 90 minutes of football, which I'm not confident we do at the moment. The amount of injury time isn't proportionate to the amount of stops in the game. Would also render timewasting tactics pointless, and the only thing worth doing would be to try break the game up with a stoppage when under sustained pressure.

SantryRed

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.

If it raises more revenue and at the same time reduces the number of terrible decisions, isn't that win win? I mean, hawkeye in GAA is sponsored...but so?

Will I Amnt

CSF wrote: »

These things aren't even the slightest bit comparable. One is a funny novelty, the other is a legitimate time drain.

I can guarantee you it will get the same "woooooooooooooooaaaaaaahhhh... Yay/Boo" as it does in other sports.

SantryRed

Deleted User wrote: »

If it raises more revenue and at the same time reduces the number of terrible decisions, isn't that win win? I mean, hawkeye in GAA is sponsored...but so?

Not when it slows down the flow of the game as much as I feel it will. Just look how frustrating some of the World Cup games were due to so many players going down with pointless injuries.

Also, there's a big difference with football to any other sport.

GAA: game is directly stopped as ball has either gone wide or over. It'll be a puck out/ kick out regardless.
Rugby: ball is held up or he's out of bounds or it's a try. Game will resume with a kick off, line out or scrum.
American Football: he caught it properly or he didn't. It's either another down or a TD or a first down somewhere on the field.

If it's to work in football, it should purely be for offside and goal line decisions. Fouls and such should never be included. None of them are in any of the other sports that It is used in, other than foul play in rugby!

You also have to consider The ball not going out of play for a minute after such a decision is made and the possibility of the other team scoring and then a challenge happening. What a cluster **** that would be. Then there's also the question of the clock. Does the ref go back to the time the score happened and start the clock by then or do you effectively lose a minute of pointless football?

There's a lot to be ironed out. Subjective decisions should not be included in any review system though.

CSF

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I can guarantee you it will get the same "woooooooooooooooaaaaaaahhhh... Yay/Boo" as it does in other sports.

You can guarantee me all you want, and it might the first one or two teams, but after that, no.

GavRedKing

I'm all for it anyway.

Theres at least 3 incidents involving Chelsea this year that would have been reversed upon a challenge or TV replay.

Burnley - Costa is brought down by the GK, original decision of yellow for diving is reversed and a penalty awarded.

Everton - Ivanovic goal, hes just offside, it would have been reversed, free out.

Everton - Howard handball outside the box, clear as day handball outside the box on second viewing.

If we had a challenghe system the outcome of both games could have been different.

Burnley down to 10men and Chelsea get a penalty to take the lead.

Everton staying at 1-0 with only 3minutes on the clock.

Everton lose their GK but the game is still only 1-0 from Ivanovic goal being disallowed only minutes earlier.

eagle eye

I'm fully on favour of a challenge. I'll always be in favour of anything that helps get rid of major refereeing errors in games.

Hyzepher

What about limiting it to incidents that resulted in a goal?

GavRedKing

Hyzepher wrote: »

What about limiting it to incidents that resulted in a goal?

It depends on the goal. If its an offside goal its clear as day on a replay if it should or should not have stood.

If its a goal that has gone in after an apparent foul on a on opposition player, its very tough to call and can be subjective.

I'd like to give the dug out access to replays they alert the 4th official that they want to stop the game for a challenge, he tells the ref who stops the game in the next break of play and the incident is reviewed.

Problems could arise if during the period youre awaiting an incident to be reviewed that another incident occurs but stop the game straight away could be controversial and there surely would have to be a time limit from the original event happening to challenging it. In the NFL its pretty much after seeing 1 replay so it can be risky to challenge, I'd say the same should be in Soccer, as soon as the 1st replay is available you have a few seconds to challenge.

Also with regarding the time keeping, I'd be up for that too. Let the 4th official decide it. The rule of thumb is 30secs a goal and sub. If a player is taking longer to leave the pitch or celebrating doing laps of the pitch book them and add on time, it rarely happens and you often see 3/4 mins as added time when with injuries, goals and subs it could easily have been double that.

Arghus

GavRedKing wrote: »

It depends on the goal. If its an offside goal its clear as day on a replay if it should or should not have stood.

If its a goal that has gone in after an apparent foul on a on opposition player, its very tough to call and can be subjective.

I'd like to give the dug out access to replays they alert the 4th official that they want to stop the game for a challenge, he tells the ref who stops the game in the next break of play and the incident is reviewed.

Problems could arise if during the period youre awaiting an incident to be reviewed that another incident occurs but stop the game straight away could be controversial and there surely would have to be a time limit from the original event happening to challenging it. In the NFL its pretty much after seeing 1 replay so it can be risky to challenge, I'd say the same should be in Soccer, as soon as the 1st replay is available you have a few seconds to challenge.

Also with regarding the time keeping, I'd be up for that too. Let the 4th official decide it. The rule of thumb is 30secs a goal and sub. If a player is taking longer to leave the pitch or celebrating doing laps of the pitch book them and add on time, it rarely happens and you often see 3/4 mins as added time when with injuries, goals and subs it could easily have been double that.

What is the current position regarding assess to replays for coaches on the bench? Obviously sometimes things are replayed on screens inside particular stadiums but it seems that currently most top level coaches don't make use of replays in real time? I'm open to correction on this but they seem to be often more in the dark than those watching at home who have had the benefit of seeing a given incident repeated several times after it has first occurred.

People need to calm down a little about this. It is only at the stage of a potential trial. So even a real trial may never happen. And even if it does, who can argue with wanting to see if it will work in reality?

CSF

Arghus wrote: »

What is the current position regarding assess to replays for coaches on the bench? Obviously sometimes things are replayed on screens inside particular stadiums but it seems that currently most top level coaches don't make use of replays in real time? I'm open to correction on this but they seem to be often more in the dark than those watching at home who have had the benefit of seeing a given incident repeated several times after it has first occurred.

People need to calm down a little about this. It is only at the stage of a potential trial. So even a real trial may never happen. And even if it does, who can argue with wanting to see if it will work in reality?

The people who know it will work, but don't like how it will work.

eagle eye

Hyzepher wrote: »

What about limiting it to incidents that resulted in a goal?

I wouldn't limit it to that. I think major decisions like penalties or a penalty not given should be allowable under review.

If a penalty is given in the wrong, if a player is a given a red card, if a penalty is not given when there was clearly a foul then they should all be reviewable.

Obviously there has to be rules in place like the NFL has where reversing a decision can only be done if its absolutely certain that it should be. Where replays don't give concrete evidence then the referee's decision stands.

Also I think the team should get one challenge per half and they have unlimited challenges as long as each time they challenge the decision is overturned. The challenge should only stop play when the ball goes dead. That would mean there will not be any abuse of the system.

Guy:Incognito

CSF wrote: »

The notion that because players already waste some time that it is no issue to waste even more, makes no sense to me. You probably wouldn't be that surprised to learn that I'm in favour of cutting those time wastes too.

The part about players rolling around was regarding stopping the clock, not replays. If the clock is stopped when the ref whistles then it doesn't matter if the player rolls around for 10 seconds or 60, cos no time will be lost.

CSF

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The part about players rolling around was regarding stopping the clock, not replays. If the clock is stopped when the ref whistles then it doesn't matter if the player rolls around for 10 seconds or 60, cos no time will be lost.

I agree with stopping the clock for stoppages. Would reduce them dramatically.