Given the choice which option would you rather see in football? Five refs which is cureently being piloted in lesser UEFA competitions; the use of video technology commonly used in other sports? Or do you think the current system should not be tampered with?

Video tech for me. But it should only be used in special circumstances. I wouldn't want the ref to look at replays for every little incident on the pitch. But important ones like in the case of Henrys goal against Ireland they should be able to look at a replay.

I've heard quite awhile ago that they were going to try out a new thing where they used 5 refs. Apart from the linesmen and the ref there would be an additional two refs who would be positioned one at each goal - or rather the extra ref at one goal would stand at the far post from the linesmans point of view, thus creating a triangle.

That way they hoped to see more offences in the goal area and also have a ref very close to the goal so to have a better chance at seeing goal situationes such as whether or not a ball crossed the line and such.

That idea sounded quite good as well and I hope they try it out. I might point out that there's a swedish ref involved in the try-out :D

The guy who I heard this from (the swedish ref) said that they wouldn't allow shirt pulling and players holding on to eachother in the penalty area. He reckoned that there would be a lot of penalties at the beginning, but in the end we would hopefully see a decline in fouls on set pieces.

There are pros and cons for both, but I agree with Moos, Video technology is a must, but only in special circumstances i.e. penalties, goal line clearances.

However, how would you do it for the Henry goal, for example? If it led to players arguing with the referee that he calls a video replay, then players could use that, when there's any goal, and demand a video replay.

So, I think we should take a leaf out of Rugby's rule book with getting a video ref, only the video ref observes the match from lots of different angles, so he can immediately tell the main referee through his ear piece that the player handled/dived/fouled or whatever.

There are pros and cons for both, but I agree with Moos, Video technology is a must, but only in special circumstances i.e. penalties, goal line clearances.

However, how would you do it for the Henry goal, for example? If it led to players arguing with the referee that he calls a video replay, then players could use that, when there's any goal, and demand a video replay.

So, I think we should take a leaf out of Rugby's rule book with getting a video ref, only the video ref observes the match from lots of different angles, so he can immediately tell the main referee through his ear piece that the player handled/dived/fouled or whatever.

I think that this is a sensible option. I just want to know how it would work if Platini came out yesterday and said "the video ref's equipment malfunctioned, and by the time we had it running again the game was over!"

But I do think something will happen, it's being talked about too much lately for it not to start gaining some ground. The powers that be will probably only want more refs, then they can still put dubious/favourable decisions down to human error when it comes to their beloved teams making it through due to dodgy calls

Neither. 5 refs just gives the option of more idiots in the game.

Video i'm not sure I support as I love the flow of football.

I think there needs to be a different culture surrounding referees... they need to be instructed to be as little involved in games as possible. I think it's crazy in the EPL how the refs are almost stars with personalities and "relationships with the players" rather than inanimate objects with whistles.

If it were up to me i'd have a set retroactive punishment for missed offences by players and refs, and other than that just accept certain flaws will happen during games but that they will be punished.

Video tech is a must. Been cheated and seen injustice way too many times not to support it.

jeez with video tech can you imagine how long Fergie will argue about added time?

There are pros and cons for both, but I agree with Moos, Video technology is a must, but only in special circumstances i.e. penalties, goal line clearances.

However, how would you do it for the Henry goal, for example? If it led to players arguing with the referee that he calls a video replay, then players could use that, when there's any goal, and demand a video replay.

So, I think we should take a leaf out of Rugby's rule book with getting a video ref, only the video ref observes the match from lots of different angles, so he can immediately tell the main referee through his ear piece that the player handled/dived/fouled or whatever.

this pretty much sums it up for me. Even with five officials they have missed a few calls here and there in the Europa League.

There are alot of kinks to work out, but if Rugby has managed to make it work, I fail to see how football could not.

Although video technology is a must, and will be introduced at some point in future, that time is not near yet. I think what we can have is a retrospective ban/punishment system, but in a slightly different way. The ref listens to players appealing an offense (handball, dive etc) then calls the alleged offender and asks him whether he did the offense. He could tell the truth or he could lie which could later be confirmed and appropriate action taken.

Like in the Henry handball case, the ref asks Henry if he handled the ball. If Henry says yes, goal is disallowed and if he says no, the goal is allowed and then after looking at the replays later, Henry is found guilty, he's banned for a number of games. Even in the case of diving, a mere yellow card for a dive is not a deterrent. The possibility of being banned for three games for diving would stamp it out completely from the game.

neither

leave the game as it is

with video technology all the key or dodgy decisions that we talk about after the game are gone, what we going talk about?

5 refs wont work it didnt in the tin cup league, they still got key decisions wrong

taking these issues out of the hands of refs, did he dive, was it a penalty, he was off side, are part and parcel of the game we all love, it increases the banter with friends who support other teams

if henreys handball incident had been over ruled what would we have all been talking about since wednesday, i'm sure we would have paid the game no further attention within half an hour of the final whistle

neither

leave the game as it is

with video technology all the key or dodgy decisions that we talk about after the game are gone, what we going talk about?

5 refs wont work it didnt in the tin cup league, they still got key decisions wrong

taking these issues out of the hands of refs, did he dive, was it a penalty, he was off side, are part and parcel of the game we all love, it increases the banter with friends who support other teams

if henreys handball incident had been over ruled what would we have all been talking about since wednesday, i'm sure we would have paid the game no further attention within half an hour of the final whistle

So you watch the game more for the banter with friends afterward than for the game itself? There are lot of points to talk about in a game apart from just the refereeing decisions...the tactics, individual skills etc just to name a few. I for one do not buy this argument that we would have nothing to talk about after a game if we remove the refereeing errors.

5 refs just gives the option of more idiots in the game.

Agreed.

Video technology will have a geater impact on the game, as a greater amount of decisions will go the right way. Players will learn that no wrong decisions will go their way after a very short time, so the periods of stoppage for video technology will be greatly reduced. There'll be no point in being dishonest if you're only going to be proved wrong, and get booked for trying to deceive a referee.

The impact of video technology on the flow of the game will be short term. Eventually it'll only have to be used, in decisions where the right decision isn't so clear, and with radio head pieces and a man at the side reviewing the video, it can be almost seamless.

I'd just like a linesman with the balls to raise his flag when he see's a handball.

Can't they have something like they'd tried in Cricket a while ago - wherein each on-field captain gets a certain number of video-replay-appeals in a game?

Like for instance, each on-field captain in a football game gets to appeal to the ref for one video-replay per game (or per half, maybe). So, like in the France-Ireland game, if the Irish captain still had his appeal left, he could appeal to the ref for checking if it was handball via replay.

I know it's on a different tangent and not exactly the video-tech being discussed, but would this be so bad? Sure, the use of appeals will kill the flow of the game, but I suppose it's only fair to halt the game for about fifteen seconds to get a decision right, so that no one is hard-done. Just a thought.

Edited November 24, 200916 yr by Bombay Blues

I'd more then advocate for video review, we've had it here in North America for some time now. Despite some grumbling going in its now in every major league and everyone is all the better for it.

Retrospective punishment.

One thing that occured to me as I was watching Rubin Kazan appeal for a penalty after a striker being brought down in the box on the counterattack is that such fouls are RARELY called correctly (think Drogba vs Barcelona), simply because the referee is both miles away from the action and the assistant is more concerned with watching for offside. There may be some merit to having 4 assistant referees on the field, in this case.

I'm all for goal-line technology, however- it is a fundamental rule of the game and must be enforced as properly as possible. I also don't but into the argument that video/tech somehow 'cheapens' the game or makes it lose 'character'; sports have rules for a reason and they need to be enforced properly to ensure a fair contest.

Video technology to be used as follows:

Referee gets to call for it on goal-line decisions.

Captains have two opportunities to call for it per game at their discretion.

Any argument about it slowing the game down is nullified by the amount of time already wasted through play-acting and rowing about decisions.

In rugby, the video ref process rarely takes mmore than 30 seconds. That's about half the time it takes a centre forward to execute his triple salko with pike when 'tripped'' in the box, followed by his near death convulsions.

There are responsibilities that come with this, mind. If a captain calls for the video ref to validate a penalty claim, he has to be crystal that his player has not dived. If the video shows any sort of diving / play-acting on the part of the plaintiff, he gets carded or better still, sent off.

In a single move, you'd kill the notion that it is ok to cheat in football as long as you're not caught.

As for the 'we'd have nothing to talk about' argument, I for one am sick of having this same discussion every year for the last 30 years.

Right, that's my annual post out of the way.

Part of me agrees with the 2 challenges approach but that doesn't help if something major happens and there are no challenges left. The use of video replay to assist the ref if he is unsure or unsighted can hardly be a bad thing. The ref, his assistants and the fourth official are already in communication so it would be easy for the fourth official to have access to tv replays. It isn't a given that all decisions would be correct but it does at least give the opportunity for the match officials to have the best chance of catching glaring errors.

Applied to the France v. Ireland match it would have resolved the controversy in an instant. The ref couldn't just disallow the goal on the say so of the Irish even though I suspect he knew that they were right. The fourth official could easily have just given him the nod over his ear piece having seen the replay. The match could have then continued and France won the penalty shootout and everything would have been fine.