Archive for Football Italia A forum for English speaking supporters of Italian football.
 


       Football Italia Forum Index -> Football Italia Forum
Guest

Video replays in football

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!!
Guest

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.
Guest

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.
Guest

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.
Dave

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......  
Guest

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).
Liam

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.
Guest

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!
Guest

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.
Guest

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.
Guest

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.
Juvefans

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
Guest

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.
Guest

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

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

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.
Sir George

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.
Guest

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.
Guest

Some things are best left alone.
Guest

Using video wouldn't be too good for football. It would lessen the flow of the game.
Guest

Don't think we'd need a replay for this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4L34zsWClA
Myles

Definitely a dive!  
Guest

I don't care what you say, it needs to happen.

It took about ten seconds for Rosetti to see what had happened tonight and still give an off side goal.

Did it interfere with play? Did it make the game less fluid?

In true Noel Gallagher spirit, I hope Sepp Blatter "catches aids and dies".
Guest

We need something, games where these things are happening are getting too high profile. Examples include Klose's offside goal in the CL against Fio, think how much money that may have cost the club. It doesn't need to be applied to everything, just offsides, whether the ball crossed the line and violent conduct/fakers!

The technology exists where if the ball crosses the line it transmits a beeping noise into the ref's earpiece. This clearly indicates whether it was a goal or not and would take less time than it would to give a dodgy goal and go through all the protests after. This is my major counter to people who say it would interrupt the "flow" of the game. We have so much protesting, arguing etc that the "flow" of the game is interrupted anyway. Why not lose 5 seconds and get it right, stop all the ridiculous surrounding of the ref etc and get on with the game. Besides football doesn't flow anymore, too many players rolling round on the floor after a nudge forcing the ref to stop the game!

My other suggestion is to use a real time clock like in rugby, therefore you play a full ninety minutes with no disputes. No Fergie style dodgy injury times either. Whenever the ball is out of play, whenever some one is rolling round on the floor, whenever the ref needs to use the video technology to help him out - stop the clock.
Guest

Actually I am not totally for it. Each side gets 3 calls like in tennis. It takes 60 seconds to check on the video.

Fifa's argument that it comes down to human judgement anyway is ridiculous. That's like saying fighting with an axe is no different to fighting without because it all comes down to the individual anyway.
Guest

Good post Duffman.

The main argument against is the time taken and how the technology would be utilised.

I don't think anyone would want to see it used to debate a throw in on halfway, but goal line technology and the odd quick replay to decide a pen or not is certainly where it is needed.

Oh, and in a multi billion dollar industry, a referee that doesn't have to worry about his day at the office in the morning might be an idea too. Maybe.  
Curva Fiesole

Having the extra officials on the goal line as in the Europa League would help with incidents like yesterdays, both Lampards "goal" and Tevez being offside.
Guest

I am NOW totally for it*
Guest

Sir George wrote:
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.


In spirit I agree with this comment, football is just a game in the end and a lot of the time it is not the existing players who go on about it but all of the pundits and media around the game.  However this is just the point, professional football is big business - for everybody involved in it, from players,agents,  managers, owners, media, sponsors, etc etc  It's stopped being 'just a game' a long time ago...
DP

http://www.sportmediaset.mediaset...istphoto_itemPhoto_5_immagine.jpg
Guest

Errr it's nothing like marbles and subbuteo because millions of fans invest a lot of emotional energy into it, billions of pounds are involved, millions of jobs and during the world cup the economy receives a significant boost through additional spending.

So it's just a game like meat is just a way of nourishing yourself. You can trivialise anything.
Myles

You obviously don't take subbuteo as seriously as me.
Sir George

Football fans have invested "emotional energy" into football for decades despite the fact that television has, since the 1960s, shown up errors and the fundamental imperfection of the game.  Huge amounts of money are in invested and made in football despite the fact that referees' decisions are imperfect.  We all seem to survive.

Emotionally stunted people will invest their hopes and dreams into football whether there is video technology or not.  Likewise the money will keep rolling in from the gullible and out to the talented and well-placed regardless of whether off side decisions are 100% accurate or totally random.  The anger of angry people will be misdirected towards football regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of decision-making.

The notion that because people have forgotten that football is just a game means that it is reasonable to introduce video technology to ensure "justice" is poppycock.  Neither the emotion of dafties or grotesque sums of money mean that football really matters.

Video technology would kill football as a spectator sport.  Mickey says he wouldn't want it for throw-ins, but Sam Allardyce certainly would. Once you have it for goal lines, offsides and penalties, logic would dictate you would have to have it for all decisions.  If the game is stopped regularly for off-sides how would a manager tolerate conceding a goal to a long throw-in that television shown should have been awarded to his team?  

The whole movement towards use of video in football is too bonkers for words.
Curva Fiesole

In rugby union, video replays are only used to determine if a try has been scored.  There are still countless other issues that go uncorrected, knock-ons, crooked feeds, blocks etc that replays show on TV but, becuase they aren't allowed to be reviewed, go unchallenged.  The same would be true of football, if it's clear that replays will only be used to determine if a goal has been scored or nit, then that would be the limit of the technology, no matter how many times Big Sam jumps up and down.  How long would it take to review?  About the same time as it takes 11 players to surround the referee and demand a review!

You truly are Septic Bladder aren't you Sir George?
Sir George

Yeah.  The other barmy thing about the hysterical video technology mob is this insistence that they'd have their way if only it wasn't for one man, one complete b****** out to ruin football.   Like the rest of their arguments, it's nonsense.  It's not just Blatter that can see the bleedin' obvious and he wouldn't be able to stop the madness if he didn't have widespread support from people within FIFA capable of coherent thought.
Guest

Sir George wrote:

Video technology would kill football as a spectator sport.  Mickey says he wouldn't want it for throw-ins, but Sam Allardyce certainly would. Once you have it for goal lines, offsides and penalties, logic would dictate you would have to have it for all decisions.  If the game is stopped regularly for off-sides how would a manager tolerate conceding a goal to a long throw-in that television shown should have been awarded to his team?  


The slippery slope argument is useless by itself, why would they begin introducing video replays for everything? Even American Handegg has a limit on how many decisions you can contest, and that's much more of a stop-start game.

All implementations would be decided on whether the flow of the game would be interrupted and the best applications would be to verify offside goals and if the ball actually went in and those decisions can be taken in a really fast way.

A chip in the ball that could tell you if a ball went in would take seconds to verify, and the fourth referee can verify whether and offside goal was offside or not within seconds.

Honestly, with all the benefits and fairness technology can bring to the sport, people that don't support it strike me as dinosaurs afraid of technology.
Sir George

Yeah, okay Logan, explain the detail.  You just want video technology for offsides when a goal is scored?  If so, you are just helping defences and reducing numbers of goals awarded.  Great!  Maybe we'll get the goals per game ratio under 1 for the next world cup!

Or do you also what to tackle the "injustice" of an offside incorrectly given?   E.g. A player through on goal is incorrectly given offside and play stopped.   What do you want? Start the game again with all the players getting back to their positions as per when the whistle was incorrectly blown?

And for goal line video replays, when do you want the game stopped?  Every time the ball hits the bar or goes near the goal or do you wait until the ball is out of play?  In the England v Germany game, after Lampard's "goal", the ball stayed in play another 30 seconds or so during which Germany came very close to scoring.  If they'd scored, you'd be happy that the crowd at the game were informed that what they'd seen didn't actually matter and it wasn't 3-1 to Germany, but 2-2.  Half the crowd would go home not knowing the score.

Regarding the chip in the ball, that is what Blatter wants another review of.  He's doing this because it will placate the loonies, obsessives and autistic who want every decision "correct", but it won't actually change anyting because the technology on chips in balls isn't quite there yet.  I.e. The chip alters the behaviour of the ball.

Yes, lots of other sports have video replays and in cricket they are absolutely atrocious.  Fine for run outs, but referrals for lbws and catches have generally led to a worse spectacle and, ironically, no better decision making.
Guest

Sir George wrote:
Yeah, okay Logan, explain the detail.  You just want video technology for offsides when a goal is scored?  If so, you are just helping defences and reducing numbers of goals awarded.  Great!  Maybe we'll get the goals per game ratio under 1 for the next world cup!


So you want incorrect goals awarded to artificially inflate the score?? Huh...

Quote:

Or do you also what to tackle the "injustice" of an offside incorrectly given?   E.g. A player through on goal is incorrectly given offside and play stopped.   What do you want? Start the game again with all the players getting back to their positions as per when the whistle was incorrectly blown?


You're being thick on purpose. When a goal is scored, it could be checked out then, like in the Mexico vs Argentina game, not in every single play. Keep creating strawmen though.

Quote:
And for goal line video replays, when do you want the game stopped?  Every time the ball hits the bar or goes near the goal or do you wait until the ball is out of play?  In the England v Germany game, after Lampard's "goal", the ball stayed in play another 30 seconds or so during which Germany came very close to scoring.  If they'd scored, you'd be happy that the crowd at the game were informed that what they'd seen didn't actually matter and it wasn't 3-1 to Germany, but 2-2.  Half the crowd would go home not knowing the score.


You seem to be really adept at creating strawmen, keeo it up. Ther would have been a chip inside the ball that would signal the referee that the ball went it, goal awarded, and move on. The chip alters the movement of the ball?? Are you kidding me, with the size of the thing??  

Try to find more valid arguments, because so far you have slippery slopes and strawmen, it makes your position pretty stupid to be honest.
Sir George

Yeah, I'm thick and you're Noam Chomsky.  That would be about right.
Guest

Sir George wrote:
Yeah, I'm thick and you're Noam Chomsky.  That would be about right.


No, but you're creating nonsensical situations only to bring them down to support your stance. You're refusing to see that the technology wouldn't be used in EVERY SINGLE play or taken the time to understand possible implementations.
Sir George

Well one man's nonsensical situation is another man's game of football.  I was simply attempting to show that the law of unintended consequences would apply to the use video technology in football.  I obviously did this very badly as you didn't understand what I was attempting to say.  No point in eduring a replay of this "play" though, even from a different angle.  The decision doesn't look likely to change, whatever the evidence.
Guest

Sir George wrote:
Well one man's nonsensical situation is another man's game of football.  I was simply attempting to show that the law of unintended consequences would apply to the use video technology in football.  I obviously did this very badly as you didn't understand what I was attempting to say.  No point in eduring a replay of this "play" though, even from a different angle.  The decision doesn't look likely to change, whatever the evidence.


Law of unintended consequences?? That's also known as "the Slippery Slope", and it's a nonsensical way of arguing. You attempt to push a situation further and further without any justification or rationale for it.

I believe I've already showed why your "examples" are wrong and can be countered very easily, but I'll let you know once more.

- The proper way to check if a goal is offside?

Right after the goal is scored.

- The proper way to check if a ball crossed the line?

Use a chip inside the ball that signals when the ball crossed the line.

Please note that the tech would not be used in EVERY sort of situation and would be evaluated on its own terms.
Guest

Its going to happen soon whether we like it or not, it will not ruin the flow of the game because the time wasted in protesting these calls will be made up for by finding the correct decision. Also it shouldnt be used to call a red card or foul play, only for goals ... i.e. we wouldnt have anymore Adriano scoring a goal with his hand in a derby bullshit, or Juve scoring from a non existent free kick after putting no effort the whole match vs Bologna crap...
Guest

haha Logan wiped it!!
Guest

Anyone see the Panathanaikos goal that wasnt counted in the friendly vs Milan? ... how ridiculous was that? I think its clear we need video evidence, that was too clear of a goal not to count and lol @ the Pana attacker who shoved the ref  
Duncan!

i saw it.   They need at least goal line technology
Guest

Duncan! wrote:
i saw it.   They need at least goal line technology

I saw a headline that Blatter is going to create a meeting I think in October to discuss this... hopefully it will allow for goal line technology.

He is so ignorant sometimes, always looks like he just finished butt kissing someones ass, he should realise that if he doesnt do it now the next president will make it the top priority in his campaign and it will win him the presidency because it only makes sense that a goal should be given a goal.
       Football Italia Forum Index -> Football Italia Forum
Page 1 of 1