Jump to content

The case for video review


ozboy

Recommended Posts

Every other professional sport I follow, and there are four professional football codes in Australia, plus the Summer sports of cricket and golf plus American football, all have some kind of appeal to the video referee for controversial decisions.

I think its very obvious that if there was some kind of system, where each team's manager was allowed say two appeals per half for decisions regarding offside, hand ball, or red card offences, and particularly red card offences, the game would be the better and some of the pressure would go off the referees.

Of course one of the great things about professional football is the game doesn't stop but the same idea, even more so, applies in AFL in Australia (Australian Rules) and they have still found time for video refs. Our game already stops for injury breaks and free kicks.

Appeals to the video ref would take a lot of the pressure out of the system and the ref.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Every other professional sport I follow, and there are four professional football codes in Australia, plus the Summer sports of cricket and golf plus American football, all have some kind of appeal to the video referee for controversial decisions.

I think its very obvious that if there was some kind of system, where each team's manager was allowed say two appeals per half for decisions regarding offside, hand ball, or red card offences, and particularly red card offences, the game would be the better and some of the pressure would go off the referees.

Of course one of the great things about professional football is the game doesn't stop but the same idea, even more so, applies in AFL in Australia (Australian Rules) and they have still found time for video refs. Our game already stops for injury breaks and free kicks.

Appeals to the video ref would take a lot of the pressure out of the system and the ref.

I think all extra rules will really spoil the game we sometimes dont like, but really love
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet for years running in Australia we still have the same debates over the effectiveness of video referees especially in NRL. How many times do you see tries referred back to the referee for his judgement?

At the end of the day it is easy to jduge a ref when we're watching the game in high definition, with a million camera angles, pause, replay and in the comfort of the living room or pub. Making snap decisions under pressure, even with the aid of high definition video technology, is a totally different ball game involving a totally different part of the brain. Video refereeing won't make the problem go away, it might make it slightly less frequent but nowhere near the extent people make it out to be. Any Australian NRL fan can tell you that.

A bigger issue is the general competence of referees. Something that Bluebeard brought up in the other thread; where are the sanctions against the likes of Ferguson et al who deliberately put pressure on referees? Yes Mourinho did it and all managers did it to some extent, but Ferguson has been getting away from it for years, or the entire Barcelona establishment who make you out to be an enemy of football if you don't give them favourable calls.

Essentially we have referees who are incapable of being impartial because they are partial to protecting their own reputation/integrity from the boo boys. It's impossible to not have that anxiety filter into your decision making, creating uncertainity and inconsistency. That's basic human psychology. The FA have done sweet FA to help train referees in this regard, but neither have they received help from professional referees' associations or FIFA themselves. The governing bodies blindly back their referees out of stubborness and pride rather than actively seeking to try and improve their skills and better equip them to deal with the increasing scrutiny and pressure.

It doesn't matter if those referees are out on the field or in the video box analysing replay footage, if they are unable and untrained to handle the pressure from vested interest, mistakes will occur regardless. The governing bodies are not doing their job.

Edited by SydneyChelsea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a video referee would clearly reduce bias because the errors would be reviewed. No system is perfect but professional soccer is behind the times. There are fewer goals in soccer than trys in the rugby codes (although not many less than in union) and so much more hangs on them.

I can think of countless obvious errors in recent years that could be settled by video refs fairly quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Football is most certainly lagging behind the times. We need video referrals in every sport now. The main arguments opposing technology are that they will consume time and that the authority of referees will be undermined.

One or two referrals per half will not kill any more time than protests that follow the incidents will. This is where football needs to get out of its shell. In all other sports, umpires and referees continue to be respected as they were. Instead, football is refusing to acknowledge that technology is in the hands of spectators now. It was difficult for a fan to know for sure that the referee had made a mistake some years back. Now we do. Why else has technology been embraced in other sports? When we can minimize error, we really should.

Football really stinks of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I can understand that an offside goal cannot be chalked off in retrospect. Why the f**k can't players who dive be punished severely after a game. They have no right to book people and kill matches for apparent dives if they cannot find the need to punish divers after a match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all love the flow of football and the intensity of it, no one wants to see it Americanised or slowed down like NFL.

In reality, the time it takes to show the millions of viewers at home a replay; which could be viewed by a panel at the same time to decide if something is a penalty, over the line or a dive is absolutely minimal in terms of time required. There are delays when referees talk to linesmen and the 4th official, so I dont see how it makes the slightest bit of difference.

If each team had 1call per half that they can use then that would cut down on so much of the most controversial mistakes and also the abuse referees are faced to take. Its a win win surely?!

The game demands a shake up technology wise and something needs to be done about it.

The suits in FIFA and UEFA ought to get a grip and sort it out.

Edited by Zola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with video technology in football is a lot of decisions are down to opinion and interpretation. One person thinks it's a penalty, another doesn't. One person thinks it's a dive, another thinks it's a foul. One person thinks a player was interfering with play when a goal was scored, another doesn't. It doesn't matter how many times the incident is viewed, they still come down to someone's opinion.

I would like to see the use of goal line technology, but really, how often is there a 'did it cross the line' incident? I doubt more than a handful a season. What they need to have more of is retrospective punishments, particularly for violent conduct, along with scrapping that insane FA rule about not reviewing incidents which are deemed to have been dealt with by the ref.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Everything balances itself out over time anyway, there is nothing worse than watching a game where the ref is constantly halting play so why start giving teams that same ability. I personally love the controversy officiating can bring about as it has always been a big part of the game and I don't see how taking that away will make the game anymore enjoyable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Englishman. Goal line technology is a must and probably the only clear cut decision in football, however, i'm just not convinced that video refereeing is the panacea that football fans seek and that's based on growing up with sports that have always embraced a third party video official.

Football fans seem to think video replay technology is some sort of impartial magical decision fixer but it really isn't going to change much at all. Decisions are still made under pressure by a fallible human being. The same debates about incompetence and conspiracies to corruption abound in NRL, AFL, and cricket and as long as there is a human element, they always will be.

Where video replay technology does come into its own is decision review, however. The judiciary/disciplinary panels for cricket, NRL and AFL are well served by video technology, but due to one of the two most irregular FIFA laws (it is not just an FA law Englishman, it is a directive from FIFA to all member nations) that says a referee's decision cannot be reviewed, the technology can't have the same effect.

That kind of law is exactly what I mean by blind, stubborn faith in referees. Governing bodies would do better to acknowledge the humanity and fallibility of their referees so that it might be easier for them to garner a little respect and understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with video technology in football is a lot of decisions are down to opinion and interpretation. One person thinks it's a penalty, another doesn't. One person thinks it's a dive, another thinks it's a foul. One person thinks a player was interfering with play when a goal was scored, another doesn't. It doesn't matter how many times the incident is viewed, they still come down to someone's opinion.

I would like to see the use of goal line technology, but really, how often is there a 'did it cross the line' incident? I doubt more than a handful a season. What they need to have more of is retrospective punishments, particularly for violent conduct, along with scrapping that insane FA rule about not reviewing incidents which are deemed to have been dealt with by the ref.

I don't support video review for judgment calls like whether or not a penalty is justified or if a tackle is worthy of a card. I do support video review for whether or not a goal is onside. That's entirely black and white, there's only ever one correct answer and it'd take 10 seconds to review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The main problem with video technology in football is a lot of decisions are down to opinion and interpretation. One person thinks it's a penalty, another doesn't. One person thinks it's a dive, another thinks it's a foul. One person thinks a player was interfering with play when a goal was scored, another doesn't. It doesn't matter how many times the incident is viewed, they still come down to someone's opinion.

I would like to see the use of goal line technology, but really, how often is there a 'did it cross the line' incident? I doubt more than a handful a season. What they need to have more of is retrospective punishments, particularly for violent conduct, along with scrapping that insane FA rule about not reviewing incidents which are deemed to have been dealt with by the ref.

The system in place for cricket is this. If it is too close to call, the decision of the referee (umpire) stands. Or if it could have gone either way. I don't see why penalties or sending offs cannot be reviewed in the same way. Two wrong reviews per team. That's really not too much, is it? Players will stop diving. No appeals will be made unless the player is sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The time taken from the game after a goal or a penalty decision is around the same amount of time it would take the referee to call up to a video booth and make sure the call just made was right. When a penalty is called or a goal is scored there is already a minute (at least) taken before the game commences. I see no reason why that time couldn't be taken to make sure these decisions are right. Red cards and yellow cards are far too subjective but offsides, whether a ball crossed the line, and whether a player was fouled in the box should be pretty black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Everything balances itself out over time anyway,

Oh no that is totally wrong, it was Utd that were given three points at our place so vice verse should happen at Old Trafford, we will have two of their players dismissed and a offside goal given? because that is the only way it will be balance out, it is no good saying, in other games we will get opposition players sent off over a season, and given offside goals in other games, but the injustice never occur against other teams, it occurred against Utd, and only a Utd game can balance things out.

ie.We get three undeserved points at X game, but Utd also get three points that weekend, how is that being balanced out? they still have those three undeserved points from us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely no chance, I'm vehmently opposed, bar goaline technology, as it will literally kill the game and atmosphere stone dead.

Imagine, a decision needs to be made, stop play, consult, more pause, make decision, continue play, stop play, consult, more pause, make decision... The way it is at the moment is what makes the game additionally exciting, keeps play moving and intrinsic to what makes it the most popular spectator sport in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally i know people deep down will know it was a dive or not! it is only their club allegience that prevents them from believing it even if video replay shows otherwise! evans tackle on torres leg did enough to unbalance and disrupt his running flow. torres could of stayed on his feet but the moment had gone and we all know if torres made the effort to stay on his feet then the ref will not award a freekick! young on the other hand delibritely ran across ivan looking for any touch to go down! video replays a good thing but maybe not for torres 6 studs on cleverly which on video replay was bad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I think video review should be used. I don't really buy into the whole "it takes time and ruins the game". It's not as if it's needed 10 times in every game.

I don't think it should be used in every offside situation, but the ones that leads to a goal must be reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The time taken from the game after a goal or a penalty decision is around the same amount of time it would take the referee to call up to a video booth and make sure the call just made was right. When a penalty is called or a goal is scored there is already a minute (at least) taken before the game commences. I see no reason why that time couldn't be taken to make sure these decisions are right. Red cards and yellow cards are far too subjective but offsides, whether a ball crossed the line, and whether a player was fouled in the box should be pretty black and white.

Not convinced by this argument for penalties - if the ref calls it, there's time for a quick glance in the video booth, but if he doesn't blow his whistle there's no time. So either the refs start blowing for everything that looks like a penalty, in which case we do have added delay, or we have some possible penalties being reviewed and others not. Plus penalty calls can be pretty damn subjective at times, which would make the review take longer.

With offsides, on the other hand, play's guaranteed to be stopped, and it's a straightforward question, so I don't see any reason using video review there would kill the pacing of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support video review for judgment calls like whether or not a penalty is justified or if a tackle is worthy of a card. I do support video review for whether or not a goal is onside. That's entirely black and white, there's only ever one correct answer and it'd take 10 seconds to review.

Fully agree. It would take about 0.1 second and no human interaction is needed for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Four ways in which video technology will massively improve the fairness in the game (and the lot of the referees):

1. Goal-line technology

2. Instant review of offside calls. The referee (and his assistants) would no longer stop play until he hears that the player is indeed offside. A little bit more running for players and one or two disappointed goalscorers, but no wrong offside calls.

3. Instant review of penalty decisions to make sure there was (the wrong sort of) contact between the defender and the attacker. Nothing else, the rest is a judgement call. Yellow card the divers.

4. Post-game review of fouls (not all fouls, it would be triggered when a team makes a complaint after the game about particular incidents, but with a heavy fine for frivolous complaints) and subsequent 1-match bans for divers, increasing to 2-match bans for a certain level of recidivism, say after 5 previous bans.

Think how much better the game would be, almost instantly.

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