Jump to content

question for chelsea fans


footbal_fan

for / against  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. cameras used during the game

    • yes, i support the use of cameras
      14
    • no, i don't support the use of cameras
      4


Recommended Posts

good morning gentlemen!

i am a tottenham fan but, i'm not here for banta, trolling or any other form of anti-board behaviour.

i have been asking this to fans from the premier league, la liga, serie a and the bundesliga and will post the results when they are ready

as this BBC report suggests, the use of cameras to decide certain criteria of matches could be used in the coming 2012/13 season.

what's your take?

cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Goal line technology? Yes. Something similar to Hawkeye in tennis.

But that's it. No other replays to help the officials during the match. They *never* deliver as advertised. There will never, ever be such a thing as a perfectly officiated game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some kind of goal line technology should be allowed, but it should only be used to confirm if a ball crosses the line. And there lies a problem; it could be used as an argument to introduce more into the game. For example, 'Arry thinks that Carlton Cole handled a ball over the line, and it didn't hit off his chest. So he petitions that the same technology on the goal line could be used for something else in the goalmouth area.

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone who is seriously concerned about corruption in our game could vote anything but yes to this questions. Tho I am happy to be educated by anyone here who believes corruption is a serious issue but doesn't want camera's used, anyone? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Some kind of goal line technology should be allowed, but it should only be used to confirm if a ball crosses the line. And there lies a problem; it could be used as an argument to introduce more into the game. For example, 'Arry thinks that Carlton Cole handled a ball over the line, and it didn't hit off his chest. So he petitions that the same technology on the goal line could be used for something else in the goalmouth area.

Scott

Thats true, it potentially opens up a world of replay stop-start crap like American Football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im all for any tech that helps the refs in our game, and helps point out cheating also. As an RL fan I have seen just how well video refs have helped the game, though it is much easier to find a break in play in rugby than football. But I have never understood why there has to be a break in play. Something happens, video ref automatically checks it out as quickly as possible while the game goes on. He then gives his decision to the ref who either allows play on or stops play and goes back to the incident. Would take all of 30 seconds at most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Im all for any tech that helps the refs in our game, and helps point out cheating also. As an RL fan I have seen just how well video refs have helped the game, though it is much easier to find a break in play in rugby than football. But I have never understood why there has to be a break in play. Something happens, video ref automatically checks it out as quickly as possible while the game goes on. He then gives his decision to the ref who either allows play on or stops play and goes back to the incident. Would take all of 30 seconds at most.

Mate, you ever watch the NFL? Those replays literally take 5-10 minutes to get sorted. And still they often manage to get it wrong, at least in the eyes of fans.

The beauty of Hawkeye in tennis isn't that it's accurate. Who knows if it's right or wrong? Nobody, that's who.

The beauty of Hawkeye is that everybody has chosen to trust the technology. When it renders a verdict, everyone accepts it and moves on. End of discussion.

But it's not quick. It can take 15-20 seconds for the information from all the cameras to be gathered and processed into a single animation. That's a long time in football. Imagine the ref blowing his whistle 20 seconds later and awarding a goal.

Fewer cameras would be needed to cover a goalmouth than are needed to cover a tennis court. So perhaps a decision could be rendered more quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Technology has worked well in other sports such as the aforementioned tennis and american rules football. I think it would be great to take some of the corruption out of the game but am a little pessimistic that the officials in FIFA and UEFA are the ones to take the lead on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • 3 months later...

I'd like to revive this thread, in the wake of Mark Hughes' comments that people are losing faith in referees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17653299

Personally I think that it's a ridiculous situation. Referees make bad decisions every week. Yet if a manager - for whom the decision has enormous consequences - is considered to be speaking out of turn and disciplined if he dares question the decision.

Given the gravity of some of the decisions, my first point would be that the frequency of inaccurate decisions is far too high. If you take as a given the idea that the referee is there to arbitrate fairly and accurately, then there is ample room for improvement.

So how could you improve the standard?

Until goal-line technology (chips in balls etc) is proven to work, I really don't see the problem with cameras and replays.

Replays may not be foolproof. Many are inconclusive. But they certainly offer more opportunity for accuracy. You cannot argue that a replay does not offer a more accurate way to reach decisions than a referee and two linesmen.

The only real objection I can see that makes any sense at all, is the assertion that the game would be slowed down.

But this is so exaggerated, I really don't think it's a consideration at all.

Mate, you ever watch the NFL? Those replays literally take 5-10 minutes to get sorted. And still they often manage to get it wrong, at least in the eyes of fans.

I don't know why NFL has to be the benchmark here, the amount of stoppages in the game mean that there's really no imperative to restart quickly. Added to that is the nature of the 'events' to be analysed. At the culmination of nearly every play, you have a melee of big, padded players piling into the same square foot of turf. The inherent problems of obstruction of view means that several angles have to be viewed and reviewed before a decision is made. Football is not like this. Also, we do not, and never will accept advertisements during play.

In rugby, a sport with a similar amount of bunching of players, uses a TMO with video replays to very good effect. I don't know if you watched the 6 Nations, but several decisions involving many angles and difficult views were resolved in a timely and effective way. I've seen decisions on tries reached within a minute. Rugby has been barely slowed down, if at all. All decisions come at a moment of natural stoppage - as it would with football. Play is resumed quickly, and the fans and players are generally more satisfied with the decision.

Ok, some decisions are just impossible to reach. The disallowed England try against Wales wasn't given, and it's possible the ball was grounded. But wouldn't you rather the possibility that a replay could pick up your goal/try/foul than not?

As far as repeated, successive stoppages are concerned, that simply doesn't have to be an issue. Firstly, how many times does a referee stop play in an average football match? The number of decisions that players actually dispute are relatively low. There can be, as with other sports, limits as to which events can be reviewed, and whether or not a team can request a review. Each event only need be drawn out to a maximum of a few minutes. As for an injury. Or an incident where players surround the referee and badger him to change a decision. Or when a referee jogs over to his equally gormless lino to decide whether or not to listen to the crowd. I really don't see how a TMO would break play up to the degree that the game would be ruined, especially with limits as to how it could be used. No one wants 'stop start crap'. So don't use it for every kisck of the game, every tackle, every shot on goal. Limit its use to pivotal events, like penalty shouts, red cards, direct free kicks, disputed goals.

I would rather have had the Barcelona match in 2009 broken up by TMO decisions - which to my mind would have added to the tension and made the match more exciting - than lose it like we did. Let's say 4 penalty shouts at 2 mins each (if you look at the replays, 2 minutes is easily sufficient). That would be 8 mins stoppages. Over the course of 90 mins, so 4 mins per half. We've all seen matches with 7 mins stoppage time at the end of the second half. I don't see the problem.

The simple fact is that at the moment, for whatever reason, a referee can hold his hands up and say 'I didn't see it'. If a match official is made to watch a replay, there is no way that can be an excuse. Perhaps make it compulsory to hear the TMO explain the decision. That's what happens in rugby, and it works.

If you agree that bad refereeing is a problem, then this seems like the best way to subject it to some scrutiny, accountability and transparency. I just don't see the logic to arguments against it, other than (sorry) a knee-jerk reaction to changing traditions of the game, no matter how ineffective, or a contempt for American sports, which we're all a bit guilty of.

The fact is, if you don't examine and reexamine rules and practices, then you end up with an inefficient system. Football will NEVER end up like American football, stoppages for TMO decisions do not make a sport slow and unexciting, but they do improve decision making.

As far as a consensus on the merits of the technology is concerned, you can dispute the technology in terms of absolute accuracy, but not relative accuracy. Hawkeye is fallible, but has a good degree of accuracy compared to a one-time split second decision from a far more fallible human. You talk about it as if it is entirely unpredictable, but has been made an arbitrary choice by consensus. It has been chosen because it is consistent, and as such more effective than an umpire.

Never mind Hawkeye, simple replays increase the ability of fallible humans to analyse the event. You cannot argue with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up