Time For Video Replays

Mossy Monk

after the series of terrible refereeing decisions in the World Cup, surely it's time for the referee to have access to video replays. the technology is there so why don't FIFA use it?

KdjaCL

It is the only gauranteed to work solution but i dont like it for one reason.
if they do it in Pro (top leagues WC etc:)
It alienates everyone else who plays it like me and my team
I would like to see 4 linesmen something that wont stop the game and is possible at all levels.
Kdja

Pigman

Video replays only works in a sport with a lot of stoppages, for example Rugby, American Football or Sumo. Basically any sport where a bunch of fat f.ucks like to consider themselves 'athletes'.

Bateman

During the game? No.
Picture it. Its the Cup Final, and your best midfielder (Duff, Hunt) puts it through for your best striker (Keane, Crowe), and its stuck into the back of the net. But wait. You can't celebrate just yet. The ref runs over to the touchline because he reckons your striker was offside, he wants to see it again. You are standing on the terrace (or in the pub, after all this is Ireland), and you have to wait 2 minutes after the goal goes in to celebrate. I'm not having that. I reckon most football fans are with me.

bucks73

Exactly Bateman,

And what if the striker has a shot but its cleared from behind the line, the ref and linesman dont see and the other team break upfield and score.

You cant stop play just for a video replay. And a video ref couldnt disallow the breakaway goal and award the goal for the ball over the line. That would just cause mayhem on and off the pitch.

I say keep video refs out of football from schoolboys to juniors to pros to the World Cup. The answer is to have much more experienced referees and linesmen who can handle the pressure and know the rules.

bonkey

One thing I would be in favour of is the ability to dish out punishments after the match, based on video replays.

For example, in any high-level match, I think any form of "acting" from players (grabbing face in agony after ball hits knee, as seen in Brazil v Turkey in the current world cup) should result in an automatic tournament ban for that player - regardless of whether it was seen during the match or not.

Fouls happen, but players do not "accidentally" clutch their face as if they had been struck. ANyone resorting to this type of behaviour, IMHO, has no place in any high-level tournament.

Of course, then the problem comes as to what happens in the ginal - when you cant get banned for the rest of the tourney.....

jc

bucks73

Well a fine doesnt make much of a difference to most players so something like a five match ban would have more effect.

If Rivaldo received this this after the first game he would have missed every game since bar the final. If it happened in the final then they should be banned for their next five World Cup matches be they qualifiers or finals games. So if Brazil won on Sunday and he did the same thing he would miss the first five matches of the next world cup.

Pigman

The thing I don't get is that it would be perfectly feasable (for big games any rate) to computerise the dectection of offside scenarios by using a stationary camera held directly, at a high elevation, thirty yards from each goal. Just imagine the 'blimpcam' to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

The pictures taken by these video cameras could then be digitised and then fed into a computer where a constantly running 2d model of pitch, players and the football could be constructed. Then explain to the software the parameters that constitute an offside ruling and the software would be able to deconstruct a football match down into a condition checking process containing nothing more than motion vectors. No crowd, no home team bias, no pressure.

Anyway, the whole point of this is that the computer could make the decision better than any human and then send back some kind of real-time electronic signal to the referee and the offside problem would be solved without having to constantly stop the match to consult video evidence.

Granted, it might not work in practice but I myself have never of heard of anything like this it being suggested or tried so perhaps FIFA could make investigations into it?

Mossy Monk

i am still in favour for video replays. if a player is off side and the linesman isn't sure then why should that player be given the opportunity to score. Pigmans suggestion for offside decisions is the better option. when players fall to the ground for no reason (Rivaldo in the 1st round) video replays should be used to take the cheats out of the game. they could have a 2 or 3 guys sitting in a van or something constantly reviewing replays and if they spot anything out of the ordinary they could then inform the referee and tell him what happened, not the referee stopping the game every 2 minutes

vorbis

I think video refreeing is vital for penalty box decisions. Lets face it, if something dodgy is missed somewhere else, it sdoesn't matter too much. As for waiting for a ref to confirm a goal, the same thing happens in rugby regarding tries. To be honest it works quite well. It can work and is better than some team getting robbed.

Bateman

Yeah, Pigman's idea makes sense, but I would be dead set against anything that significantly delays the game, it jusat goes against football. The good and bad decisions tend to even themselves out for most teams, although that's never much consolation at the time of a bad one.

cournioni

How about laser censors all around the pitch... that would be good.

seamus

Originally posted by Pigman
The thing I don't get is that it would be perfectly feasable (for big games any rate)...............
...............
...............
Granted, it might not work in practice but I myself have never of heard of anything like this it being suggested or tried so perhaps FIFA could make investigations into it?

Your idea has some flaws in it, but yes you are right - I don't think this has ever been considered by FIFA.

For the idea, there's a few things need considering - there would need to be 2 cameras, each facing directly down over each side of the pitch, to give accurate calls, and because players can be offside anywhere, not just at 30 yards. Players would all also need to wear some sort of detection device (not hard, a small magnet or something, coded differently for each team). I think the hardest part to consider is how (when examining a 2d map) the computer can distinguish 1. Who hit the ball, 2. If the ball was actually hit, 3. The exact moment the ball was hit. But nice idea.

I reckon 4 linesmen would be the way to go. If both agree, the decision stands, if they disagree, the ref makes the decision (although he should go with the one closer to the action). Simple.

darthmise

I'm in favour of it.
For over the line decisions and bad tackles only. And i agree with the post where players should be suspended after games when its shown that they play act, i.e. Rivaldo. When he took a dive that time, it was shown on the big screen straight away, and the crowd began booing. All the ref had to do was look up at the screen and he'd have known what went on.
If they can give red cards to players sitting on benches or for fighting after the game in the tunnel, they could have given Rivaldo a red after the game.

Stopping the game wouldn't be a problem, it happens anyway as it is when theres close calls i games.

I think 4 linesmen would only cause more uncertainty. What if the linesman on one side flags offside and the other doesn't, one team will convince the ref linesman A was right and the other would back linesman B.
Chances are they would probably just back each other up anyway, so you'd get double the number of offside calls, the first man to raise a flag would be followed by the 2nd linesman.

Keeks

Originally posted by darthmise
For over the line decisions and bad tackles only.

But when do you stop it to get the video ref to look at the replay? This will start a controversy in itself. It works in rugby, because the game because the game has already been stopped. It never stopped just to consulte the video ref.

For example if one team in rugby is pushing towards the tryline, and they are close and the maul collaspes, the ref might consult the vide ref to see if the player make it over and got downward pressure on the ball. the game had already been stopped to do this.

In football, and the ball bounces on or over the goal line and comes back out, u can't really expect the ref to stop the game to check it out. Say it happens, ball bounces on the line, the defender horses it out 70 yards and clears the danger and puts his team on the attack. The ref is a little unsure , blows ip and consultes the video ref, who says its not a gaol. Where do you restart the match. It would have to be a drop ball, but where. And what about the team that missed on on the quick counter attack.

these are simple examples i know, but you can see that this will not solve the contoversy problem.

i would like to see a sceond ref, like in basketball, each taking one half of the field and covering the opposite side to the linesman. That would be my solution

darthmise

Originally posted by Keeks


But when do you stop it to get the video ref to look at the replay?

Straight Away.

Say it happens, ball bounces on the line, the defender horses it out 70 yards and clears the danger and puts his team on the attack. The ref is a little unsure , blows ip and consultes the video ref, who says its not a gaol. Where do you restart the match. It would have to be a drop ball, but where. And what about the team that missed on on the quick counter attack.

Restart the match from where the ball was cleared from with a drop ball, and if its on the goal line, make it an uncontested drop ball, most of them are nowadays anyway.
And as long as the ref blows the whistle before the other team breaks and SCORES, then there can be no complaints, it's in the other teams best intrest to get the decisions right too. Goals have been given when they shouldn't have been.

I haven't sat down and thought this whole plan out so there are bound to be holes in it, but i think it would be better to incorporate video evidence and iron out any problems with it, than to try to solve it without video evidence.


ANyway the game usually stops when there is a duboius 'over the line' call, what with players prancing around celebrating, and the other side surrounding the ref.

Keeks

I haven't sat down and thought this whole plan out so there are bound to be holes in it, but i think it would be better to incorporate video evidence and iron out any problems with it, than to try to solve it without video evidence. [/B]

Wouldn't be better to "iron" out the problems in the current system rather than creating a new system with the video ref. Better training for refs, etc.

the main problem with the refs in the world cup tournament is the standard of football that some of then ref in there own countires. Here in ireland you wouldn't expect a sunday league ref to go and take charge of a League of ireland match, would you?

Pigman

Originally posted by seamus


Your idea has some flaws in it, but yes you are right - I don't think this has ever been considered by FIFA.

For the idea, there's a few things need considering - there would need to be 2 cameras, each facing directly down over each side of the pitch, to give accurate calls, and because players can be offside anywhere, not just at 30 yards. Players would all also need to wear some sort of detection device (not hard, a small magnet or something, coded differently for each team). I think the hardest part to consider is how (when examining a 2d map) the computer can distinguish 1. Who hit the ball, 2. If the ball was actually hit, 3. The exact moment the ball was hit. But nice idea.

I reckon 4 linesmen would be the way to go. If both agree, the decision stands, if they disagree, the ref makes the decision (although he should go with the one closer to the action). Simple.

It is untrue to say a player can be offside ANYWHERE on the pitch. Players can only be offside in the attacking half of the pitch i.e. if they have crossed the half-way line when the pass is played to them.

The idea of having the cameras at 30 yards is because this is approximately half-way between the goal-line and the halfway line. If need be fish-eye lenses could be used to take in the entire area but the idea of this camera is that it is right in the middle of what it it meant to be looking at would be able in an entire half of the pitch, not just the area around the 30yard line.

Also, players wouldn't need to wear any detection equipment because computer software has existed for a long time that can detect objects through motion in a video signal and also distinguish between colour. These two factors, at the end of the day, are pretty much all us humans do when we watch football. Also if you were going to be putting tracking mechanisms on the players then you would also have to put one on the ball, which would never be tolerated. My method would avoid this complication.

Regarding who kicked the ball this would also be pretty easy to work out because as I mentioned the software would be able to distinguish between teams by colour. However I agree for players in close proximity this would be more difficult but the final decision could always be left up to the ref if it was blatently clear that the computer had made a mistake.

//

Regarding linesmen I would be interested to know how many linesman errors were made due to infringement occuring on the far half of the pitch (away from them) and how many were made right in their face? If it had worked out at 50:50 then the case for four linesment would have to be dropped.

Having two referees on the other hand might be an idea worth trying where one stays in each half of the pitch for the entire 90 minutes in the interest of fairness.

darthmise

Originally posted by Keeks

Wouldn't be better to "iron" out the problems in the current system rather than creating a new system with the video ref.

I see what your saying, but what i'm saying is that i think video evidence would be my idea of ironing out the flaws in the current system, and then modify it as is necessary.
It could always be given a trial run at lower level matches.
If it doesn't work then... back to the drawing board, but at least it would have been tried.

Very true about the quality of the linesmen, even Sepp Blatter has now asked for all officals for world cup finals to be selected from major footballing nations.
But it's still a bone of contention in the premier league and FA cup every year, a league that is one of the finest leagues in the world.

bonkey

Originally posted by Pigman
The thing I don't get is that it would be perfectly feasable (for big games any rate) to computerise the dectection of offside scenarios by using a stationary camera held directly, at a high elevation, thirty yards from each goal.

<snip>

Anyway, the whole point of this is that the computer could make the decision better than any human and then send back some kind of real-time electronic signal to the referee and the offside problem would be solved without having to constantly stop the match to consult video evidence.

There are a number of problems with the idea. For a start, you would have to assume that the camera's always have an unoccluded view - which will never happen because a player / players can block the ball from the cameras when contesting a ball.

Secondly, unless you had incredible tracking algorithms, you would need a camera which could see the entire area at once, with sufficient resolution to be able to make the close calls - which are usually the only ones required. Im not sure how high a resolution youd need, but it would be very, very expensive if possible at all.

Thirdly, you'd have problems in rain, fog, poor light (possibly) etc.

Finally, you have a problem integrating such a system with the referee. In any possible offside situation if the ref hears a signal from this system, he has to decide whether or not to obey it. If he doesnt hear a signal, he has to decide whether or not the system has made a mistake. Ultimately, this makes the system about as useful as another lineman, but massively more expensive.

Wimbledon spent years and years trying to develop an automated system to detect tennis balls going out of the court. A much simpler problem to solve, and yet they could not develop a system reliable enough to replace humans. Hell, they couldnt even perfect the net-ball sensors.

IMHO, the only major change is that the manner in which the fourth official is used should be changed. At present, IIRC, the video-referee (the fourth off) only gets called if the referee requests his opinion. I think he should be contacting the referee any time he disagrees with the ref, or spots something the ref didnt.

Take the Rivaldo V Turkey incident. The ref didnt spot anything, but the replays clearly showed he was faking. Why the hell couldnt a fourth official (a video ref) be able to contat the ref and say "send him off - hes faking". Hell, give the ref the ability to have replays shown to him on one a screen at the side of the pitch if he wants to confirm with his own eyes.

While people may say that more use of a video ref would stop/start the game a lot, I dont agree. The video ref would only stop a game if the ref hadnt already done so and a foul had been comitted, or a ball had gone out of play. If either of these latter 2 cases occurred, surely play should be stopped.

jc

dccarm

Restart the match from where the ball was cleared from with a drop ball, and if its on the goal line, make it an uncontested drop ball, most of them are nowadays anyway. And as long as the ref blows the whistle before the other team breaks and SCORES, then there can be no complaints, it's in the other teams best intrest to get the decisions right too. Goals have been given when they shouldn't have been.

So it looks like it might have crossed the line. The ref blows to halt the game just as the forward breaks through to score. They consult the video and the verdict is no goal. The defending team now has a drop ball rather than a goal against.

You can't just stop and start the game every time there is a close call. If you do that then we might as well all go and watch American Football. Video replays should only be used for incidents where the ball has crossed the line or goals may have been offside. And then by a fourth official in the stand. And video replays would not have been any use in the Spain Korea close call anyway. Sometimes linesmen and referees just make mistakes - its happened throughout the years - and its part of the game.

Keeks

I still don't see the need for video refs in football....if baldy can ref a game without controversy then other refs should be able to do it as well. Refs at the moment are inadequatley trained or prepared for the games today.

BKtje

Its like football tho.
There are certain skills that are needed to ebome a good ref and not everyone has these amazing skills.

Its like saying cos Ronaldo can score 8 goals everyone should be able to.

That said, refs were appaling in this world cup at times. Something does indeed need to be done

Thanx 4 The Fish

I hope never to see video reffing. As was already said, the game would become more like an american footy match. Is bad enough watching a game of soccer where the ref doesn't use common sense and let a game flow, free kicks and stoppages slow the game down and make it a bad game to watch. Imagine if this system was brought in though. There could be half a minute between decisions, a match could go on for anything form 2 - 21/2 hours...

There are professional referees and they should have a reliable team of officials around them, be that 3 or 5, to run a game. This team of officials could get promoted/relegated (think a similar system is being tested in England, but only for individual refs) in the level of games that they can officiate upon depending on the quality of decisions they have given, which could be decided upon by an independent body after games. That way the cream would invariably rise to the top.

darthmise

Originally posted by dccarm

So it looks like it might have crossed the line. The ref blows to halt the game just as the forward breaks through to score. They consult the video and the verdict is no goal. The defending team now has a drop ball rather than a goal against.

I'm not on about the ball going over the sideline or behind for a corner. I'm on about whether its a goal or not.


And it wouldn't be like american football. It would only take a few seconds. American football games stop all the time. Theres only ever one or two goal line decisions in any given football match at most.


It was stated earlier in this thread but the quality of refereeing is a much larger problem or at least it was for this world cup.