With another case of refereeing myopia this weekend in the Premiership, I and surely, surely more people want to see TV introduced to 'help' referees.

I would propose the 4th official is in control of such a tool and could easily and quickly communicate what he has seen on replay to the referee if it is requested by the ref or one of his assistants in a 'case of uncertainty'.

I would also propose that it not be used to decide a throw in, and only used to decide a corner or free kick where neither of the 3 match officials could not decide upon the incident - thus making sure that it wasn't used constantly throughout the match, but is there to make the critical decisions, like that at Old Trafford at the weekend.

Vote people, your sport needs you!!

This is stupid! Even if a 4th official did have a t.v by hand he would have to make the decision within seconds so you may aswell not have the eagle eye. Say the ball crossed the line and no one saw it on the eagle eye due to someone blocking the incident wouldn't it be the same as a linesman giving the desicion.

I can also see trouble with communicating the decision from the 4th official to the referee, it would take like 3 mins...can you imagine the amount of injury time? Plus officials making mistakes is beauty of the game not knowing what the out come would be which in all is the beauty of football, if you take that away entertainment will be squanderd.

Firstly, thanks, it's always nice to be called stupid.

Secondly, there are plenty of cameras around the ground and the technology to be able to view different angles of an incident within seconds (a la Andy Gray circa late 1990's on Sky). I really don't see how it would add on loads of injury time at the end of a game - does it add lots of time on Tennis matches? Rugby?

No, it works perfectly.

He said the idea was stupid Micky. And whilst it comes from a good place I am inclined to agree.

It would add on time. Tennis is not a timed game. In principle it could last forever. It is stopped when a certain number of sets have been won. Rugby uses a stop clock system and inherently has more breaks and pauses as people go to ground. The ball is "free" more of the time in football.
As far as I know, and I could be wrong here, only major incidents are referred to a video referee in rugby (like a try) and not smaller matters.

Referees generally do a good job. The average referee makes less mistakes than the average top flight player.

If it were to be done,  the only solutions would seem to be either to leave the use of the system to the ref's discretion, or to follow the tennis example of allowing a side to have a certain number of challenges per half (say two), which the ref, not the 4th official, would review, along with the opportunity for the ref to ask to review something.

it isn't beyond the realms of technology to have TV monitors at each end of the pitch and halfway, so the ref can toddle over to the nearest one to review his decision.

Only the ref (and possibly the nearest linesman) would be allowed to see the replay  - to prevent players standing there going 'C'mon ref that was clearly a foul/dive'.

The number of challenges would need to be limited to prevent abuse - do you make a spurious challenge in the knowledge that using it might deny you the opportunity to appeal against the award of a penalty against your side? -  as would what could be challenged (most obviously being the award of penalties). there'd also need to be something to prevent a side using its two challenges in the last few minutes to break up the flow of play.

The problem I can see is that referees might start 'putting the square in the air' (copyright some Rugby chap) at every opportunity, merely pausing the game because they become afraid to make a decision.  

That said, allowing the ref to say 'Not sure, going to the TV' seems to work in Rugby without extending the match excessively, even allowing for the ebb and flow of that game in contrast with footie..

Part of me says that delaying by 30 seconds or a minute to confirm whether a ball is over the line isn't unreasonable, nor is a quick review of whether someone has been chopped or has just performed well enough for a bronze at the olympic diving. Equally, I can see the argument that it would get in the way too much and alter the character of the game.

That said, if altering the character of the game meant that players would stop throwing themselves down onto the ground and otherwise cheating......  

Are you suggesting this be implemented into all league games? It creates institutional disparity between the Premier League and lower leagues. PL games have a right, in effect, with all their cameras to have games judged more fairly than a third tier game.

This argument is by no means fatal as the PL already gets the best referees and if every league benefits in some way then at least some good has been done.

I would be against it unless
a) it were used just for goals
or
b) there were 2 appeals per game allowed by either team and the match referee were the only one allowed to view the replay.

Referring is a subjective art rather than a science (it's not a case of applying the rules to what you see in a dogmatic way). The best referees understand this. As such only those issues where it is black and white (in principle) should be judged by replay. I can see only "Did the ball cross the line?" being a matter of enough importance and simplicity to warrant a replay (and even a replay wouldnt solve it oftentimes as for all our technology we still fail to rule conclusively whether a ball crossed the line most of the time).

I'd only have it to decide whether the ball had crossed the line for a goal or not.  Nothing else.  If you have it for every decision it'd be too much and there'd be loads of added time.  Goal line decisions change matches the most, and should be the only ones we need a video for.
_________________
Forza Juve!!!

Liam wrote:

I'd only have it to decide whether the ball had crossed the line for a goal or not.  Nothing else.  If you have it for every decision it'd be too much and there'd be loads of added time.  Goal line decisions change matches the most, and should be the only ones we need a video for.

Agree with Liam. My reasoning is that there are systems available that are 100% foolproof. Either the ball has crossed the line, or it hasn't. Even with things like tackles, it's still open to interpretation.

It would certainly add on a lot of time to the game, making it dull as a spectacle. Football is not like tennis, as Bobo outlined, and stoppages in football really break up the game and make it less entertaining.

I assume this topic has arisen with regard to the Ronaldo penalty. I don't think that's a great example of where technology can be used - it was just shocking refereeing. He was stood five yards away, and had a better view than any camera could!

Micky im not calling you stupid...im calling the idea stupid. Also can people stop comparing football to Rugby and Tennis. Hawck eye can be used in those games because unlike football there aren't as many elements for example nothing can happen contraversialy in tennis unless the ball doesn't cross the line properly...and thats it! as for rugby the applys with tennis. There all forward thinking games i mean no would pick up the ball in rugby and start running backwards would they? there are no offside rules either due to the ball only being permited to be passed backwards theres also no diving in tennis or rugby or any bad tackels (apart from rugby but its in the nature of the sport.)
These are the elements that would need to be checked by hawk eye in rugby:
1.forward passes
2.if the ball does or does not cross the line.

These are the elements that would need to be checked by hawk eye in Tennis:
1.if the ball does or does not cross the line.

These are the elements that would need to be checked by hawk eye in Football:
1.offside
2.dives
3.fouls
4.corner kicks
5.if the ball does or does not cross the line.
6.offensive physical contact
7. many more....

Do you see why hawk eye has not been in introduced into football, theres not just 1 or 2 rules...theres alot! That one of the key reason of the sports success, lots of different rules and being able to play the game by respecting them.

To me the fact that fifa put so much money into goal-line technology, proved that it worked well etc, then completely canceled it for no apparent reason shows that its more convenient to keep the status quo..

I haven't ever really been one for the conspiracy theories but I wonder what else could be the reason for them canceling it, considering it does NOT delay the progress of the game in any way , and conversely can speed it up and avoid a load of arguments and fights on the pitch about whether a ball crossed the line or not.
_________________
Baggio Per Sempre!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...-rift-with-managers-Football.html

So we can have half a dozen referees in a game of football, but we can't have a guy with a video screen that shows what's going on and can relay it quickly and easily.

What happens when referee number 5 thinks it's a penalty but referee number 3 doesn't???

Considering UEFA is run by a former footballer, he really does know f**k all. FIFA is understandable, they're run by a joke of a man that never played.

I'm gonna f**k football off if they can't get things sorted, I get far more enjoyment these days out of Ice Hockey, the NFL and F1.

Part of the enjoyment of football is the debates surrounding suspect decisons after the game with mates. I'd like to see the camera used for whether the ball crossed the goal line and maybe serious off the ball incidents (headbutts etc) but nothing else

Juvefans wrote:

Part of the enjoyment of football is the debates surrounding suspect decisons after the game

Maybe I take it all too seriously then, I never like debating a decision I know was completely wrong that has gone against my own team and cost us points.

Platini really is a c**t of the highest order.

Such a shame that platini is blatter Jr...
Sorry to say it, but he is essentially the Jack Warner of Europe!
_________________
Baggio Per Sempre!

Nah, goal-line technology is an aboslute must, but beyond that any technology would make the game overly mechanical in my view.
With really dirty tackles and blatant dives, I would like to see retrospective penalties with the aid of video evidence.

It's a really naff idea and is born out of the myth that it actually matters whether referees' decisions are right or not and the modern-day tendency to employ idiot ex-footballers to analyse decisions to death.  Like marbles and subbuteo, football is just a game and should be treated as such.  In an ideal world players, managers and spectators would have sufficient maturity to realise that it's just a game and would have the grace to accept "bad decisions" and get on with their lives and not continually revive the "debate" on the use of video technology.

Sir George wrote:

It's a really naff idea..................spectators would have sufficient maturity to realise that it's just a game

Thanks, George. Put me in my place.

Anyway, if anyone wants me I'll be playing Xbox 360 while sucking a Chuppa Chup.