New video technology use being discussed

[Dharmabum]

I hope they remember which century they are living in and start using video technology more widely...

http://www.london24.com/sport/footb..._cup_set_to_decide_video_technology_1_4372120


‘A major step forward’ in English football as FA Cup set to decide video technology


A final decision will be taken at the International FA Board’s (IFAB) annual general meeting in March in Cardiff, but the recommendation to allow trials has been described as a “major step forward”. The Football Association, which has been big supporters of video technology, are expected to offer next season’s FA Cup for trials, and the Scottish FA will hold talks on doing the same in the Scottish Cup . FA chief executive Martin Glenn indicated the governing body would be willing to use its flagship competition for trials. It was also a leading force in the drive to introduce goal-line technology. Glenn told a news conference: “I’m very happy for things within my direct control - the English FA’s direct control - to be part of that. “We are big supporters of the use of technology. So, what do we control? We control the FA Cup.” The trials would be limited to decisions on goals, red cards, penalties and cases of mistaken identity. They would involve different kinds of experiments, such as video only being used when the referee asks for assistance or in a different case where the video assistant would be allowed to flag up errors. Unlike rugby, there would be no video referee on the big screens in stadiums. If trials are successful, video assistants could come in for the 2018-19 season but not in time for the 2018 World Cup. Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan added in terms of the Scottish Cup: “It’s one that we would certainly discuss as a board. As a personal preference, it’s something I’d like to see push forward.” Regan said any move to involve the SPL would have to be discussed with league organisers.

 

[mightyspur]

Good news.

 

[SpursManChris]

I hope they remember which century they are living in and start using video technology more widely...

http://www.london24.com/sport/footb..._cup_set_to_decide_video_technology_1_4372120


‘A major step forward’ in English football as FA Cup set to decide video technology


A final decision will be taken at the International FA Board’s (IFAB) annual general meeting in March in Cardiff, but the recommendation to allow trials has been described as a “major step forward”. The Football Association, which has been big supporters of video technology, are expected to offer next season’s FA Cup for trials, and the Scottish FA will hold talks on doing the same in the Scottish Cup . FA chief executive Martin Glenn indicated the governing body would be willing to use its flagship competition for trials. It was also a leading force in the drive to introduce goal-line technology. Glenn told a news conference: “I’m very happy for things within my direct control - the English FA’s direct control - to be part of that. “We are big supporters of the use of technology. So, what do we control? We control the FA Cup.” The trials would be limited to decisions on goals, red cards, penalties and cases of mistaken identity. They would involve different kinds of experiments, such as video only being used when the referee asks for assistance or in a different case where the video assistant would be allowed to flag up errors. Unlike rugby, there would be no video referee on the big screens in stadiums. If trials are successful, video assistants could come in for the 2018-19 season but not in time for the 2018 World Cup. Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan added in terms of the Scottish Cup: “It’s one that we would certainly discuss as a board. As a personal preference, it’s something I’d like to see push forward.” Regan said any move to involve the SPL would have to be discussed with league organisers.

This term "video technology" sort of implies some NEW technology that needs to be developed. When in fact it is just so simple; an extra official, sitting on his arse watching the match with access to the high zoom, slow-mo replays. I've never understood the complication. I can't see any reason why this couldn't have been done when football started to be filmed, with the ability to play out to a monitor, even if it was just as simple as an official watching a single camera feed. Its a joke really. Have referees just gotten worse, and only now is it a problem? Did they actually used to be good?

 

[Donki]

This term "video technology" sort of implies some NEW technology that needs to be developed. When in fact it is just so simple; an extra official, sitting on his arse watching the match with access to the high zoom, slow-mo replays. I've never understood the complication. I can't see any reason why this couldn't have been done when football started to be filmed, with the ability to play out to a monitor, even if it was just as simple as an official watching a single camera feed. Its a joke really. Have referees just gotten worse, and only now is it a problem? Did they actually used to be good?

High def, more cameras at grounds and better lenses have made the job of a referee nearly impossible. They have one chance to see an incident, some of which aren't even on the ball, and they get slated for every mistake. Also the game has got massively faster in the last 5-10 years. Every pundit after watching an incident 10 times has something to say about how the "ref did t see it". Even if you had a "video referee" how he calls the incident will STILL be questioned by some.

Il probably get slated for this but video technology for goal line incidents fine, bring it in. For anything else, such as fouls, penalty calls, free kicks, throw ins, handballs, violen conduct, offsides the list is endless I wouldn't be a big fan of, the game would lose so much momentum it would be shocking.

 

[Dharmabum]

High def, more cameras at grounds and better lenses have made the job of a referee nearly impossible. They have one chance to see an incident, some of which aren't even on the ball, and they get slated for every mistake. Also the game has got massively faster in the last 5-10 years. Every pundit after watching an incident 10 times has something to say about how the "ref did t see it". Even if you had a "video referee" how he calls the incident will STILL be questioned by some.

Il probably get slated for this but video technology for goal line incidents fine, bring it in. For anything else, such as fouls, penalty calls, free kicks, throw ins, handballs, violen conduct, offsides the list is endless I wouldn't be a big fan of, the game would lose so much momentum it would be shocking.

So what's the differene between using video tech to prevent goals to be wrongfully awarded/cancelled than having a goal scored from a worngfully awarded penalty that could have been ruled as a non-penalty?
If technology can make the game more fair I see nothing wrong using it.

 

[Donki]

So what's the differene between using video tech to prevent goals to be wrongfully awarded/cancelled than having a goal scored from a worngfully awarded penalty that could have been ruled as a non-penalty?
If technology can make the game more fair I see nothing wrong using it.

How many disputed goals are you likely to see in a game opposed to a tackle that may or may not be a foul? Who makes the call to have the tackle reviewed by video? What if the ref on the pitch doesn't think it's a foul and waves play on and doesn't review it, can the video official over ride him?

If you want to implement video technology you need to take the on pitch referee out of the game and replace him with a runner and just have the video referee doing his job virtually. Then of course you would have no need for linesmen. Even then the time taken to review an incident even if it's seconds could take the flow out of the game.

 

[Japhet]

Rugby has embraced video technology but refs rarely give a try without reviewing it over and over. I think it's gone a bit too far and interrupts the flow of the game. Maybe something like in cricket where each team could review a couple of decisions would work.

 

[thfc1989]

Will slow down the game too much, No need.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Rugby has embraced video technology but refs rarely give a try without reviewing it over and over. I think it's gone a bit too far and interrupts the flow of the game. Maybe something like in cricket where each team could review a couple of decisions would work.

This is exactly the problem. I go and watch rugby every week and it is infuriating the number of times the refs now go to the tv decision.

There's also no clear cut rules on how far back in a move you're allowed to look, which could also be a problem in football. If there's a goal that comes from a disputed throw in, do you go back that far?

You also have the issue that if the technology is there, the refs will use it all the time. If they don't use it and then make a mistake they'll look daft, so even the most clear cut decisions end up getting reviewed.

I think they should trial it in a few games in relation to penalty decisions, but even then I'd be concerned at how often it would be used considering the number of appeals teams make per game. You'd have to, for example, review every goal that comes from a corner as there's always fouling going on there.

I just think that it has the potential to ruin the game rather than help it, unless it is very clearly defined when it can and cannot be used. I quite like the reviews idea, but doubt that would ever be agreed to.

 

[Mattspur]

It may slow the game down initially, but eventually, when players realise they aren't going to get away with fouling in the box or diving for a penalty they will stop it. Surley denying offside goals or goals where there has been a foul in the build up is the right and fair thing to do? There have been so many cases of players being sent off because of an opponent faking it. I think it would be great for the game to make sure cheats don't prosper and the correct player is punished.

 

[Dharmabum]

How many disputed goals are you likely to see in a game opposed to a tackle that may or may not be a foul? Who makes the call to have the tackle reviewed by video? What if the ref on the pitch doesn't think it's a foul and waves play on and doesn't review it, can the video official over ride him?

If you want to implement video technology you need to take the on pitch referee out of the game and replace him with a runner and just have the video referee doing his job virtually. Even then the time taken to review an incident even if it's seconds could take the flow out of the game.

I did not say one should use technology for every single call. Just "vital" ones - like off-sides, yellow and red cards, free-kicks in "dangerous" positions, incidents off view from the ref, corners etc.
There can still be a main ref who "runs" the game who has a good rapport with the video ref. And linesmen can still be present too. One need the refs on field in person.
Team handball, ice hockey and basketball all use video tech and no one complains about it and those are faster sports than football. In Rugby and NFL there are natural breaks anyway, so I am not use those sports as examples.
I would also introduce "effective playing time" to counter time wasting.

 

[Dharmabum]

Will slow down the game too much, No need.

How come in faster sports like basketball, team handball and ice hockey people don't complain about video tech having done that?

 

[Donki]

I did not say one should use technology for every single call. Just "vital" ones - like off-sides, yellow and red cards, free-kicks in "dangerous" positions, incidents off view from the ref, corners etc.
There can still be a main ref who "runs" the game who has a good rapport with the video ref. And linesmen can still be present too. One need the refs on field in person.
Team handball, ice hockey and basketball all use video tech and no one complains about it and those are faster sports than football. In Rugby and NFL there are natural breaks anyway, so I am not use those sports as examples.
I would also introduce "effective playing time" to counter time wasting.

How many times do even pundets disagree when they have probably spent a good few minites reviewing different footage of the same challenge and STILL disagree.

Basketball and hockey IMO arent comparable to football, they dont flow in the same way. lease lets not do the whole 3 available video review calls for each team. I find it very gimicky, yes it works in tennis and in rugby I just dont think it would translate well to football.

 

[Japhet]

How many times do even pundets disagree when they have probably spent a good few minites reviewing different footage of the same challenge and STILL disagree.

Basketball and hockey IMO arent comparable to football, they dont flow in the same way. lease lets not do the whole 3 available video review calls for each team. I find it very gimicky, yes it works in tennis and in rugby I just dont think it would translate well to football.

It's not about being gimmicky, it's about enabling contentious decisions to be reviewed during the match and not allowing the process to continually interfere with the flow of the game. Unlimited access to reviews would most probably ruin the game for people on the terraces but anything that can lead to fairer decisions and preventing cheating would be very welcome IMO.

 

[Donki]

It's not about being gimmicky, it's about enabling contentious decisions to be reviewed during the match and not allowing the process to continually interfere with the flow of the game. Unlimited access to reviews would most probably ruin the game for people on the terraces but anything that can lead to fairer decisions and preventing cheating would be very welcome IMO.

I think it is, you either have a video ref or you don't, a manager could very easily request a call simply to disrupt the flow of the game. If you are going to use technology it needs to be embraced properly, there would be no need for an on field referee, simply a runner to to act on the video refs discision, thats if you want to go down this route.

There is already solutions in place to stop cheating, if a ref thinks a player dived book him, if he does it again send him off.

 

[Japhet]

I think it is, you either have a video ref or you don't, a manager could very easily request a call simply to disrupt the flow of the game. If you are going to use technology it needs to be embraced properly, there would be no need for an on field referee, simply a runner to to act on the video refs discision, thats if you want to go down this route.

There is already solutions in place to stop cheating, if a ref thinks a player dived book him, if he does it again send him off.

It wouldn't necessarily have to disrupt the flow of the game. Managers could be in direct contact with the 'video ref' to review a specific incident. The game could carry on in the meantime and only be brought back if the complaint is upheld. Rugby has been very progressive in it's use of technology, especially when it comes to foul play and cheating. It has however, IMO, gone a bit too far with some Refs reviewing each and every try, but overall I think it has made the game fairer.

 

[Donki]

It wouldn't necessarily have to disrupt the flow of the game. Managers could be in direct contact with the 'video ref' to review a specific incident. The game could carry on in the meantime and only be brought back if the complaint is upheld. Rugby has been very progressive in it's use of technology, especially when it comes to foul play and cheating. It has however, IMO, gone a bit too far with some Refs reviewing each and every try, but overall I think it has made the game fairer.

I dont disagree with it in Rugby but its has very clear phases and breakdowns in play it is easy for thee reviews to take place. Another reason the video technology is needed is because there is more cases where there is no possible way a ref can tell if the ball was touched down, if a ball was played when a player was on the ground or not released when a player went to ground due t the number of bodies around or on the player.

The free flowing way of football, attack/counter-attack and goal doesn't give such oppertunites for reviews to take place. Before we get video tech I would rather we could teach our players to have more respect for the human ref, id love them to be miced up like in rugby in an attemp to stop some of the bullshit the players try and pull, I would like players punished for cheating both by the FA and by their teams post match this should cut out some of the cheating.

 

[Japhet]

I dont disagree with it in Rugby but its has very clear phases and breakdowns in play it is easy for thee reviews to take place. Another reason the video technology is needed is because there is more cases where there is no possible way a ref can tell if the ball was touched down, if a ball was played when a player was on the ground or not released when a player went to ground due t the number of bodies around or on the player.

The free flowing way of football, attack/counter-attack and goal doesn't give such oppertunites for reviews to take place. Before we get video tech I would rather we could teach our players to have more respect for the human ref, id love them to be miced up like in rugby in an attemp to stop some of the bullshit the players try and pull, I would like players punished for cheating both by the FA and by their teams post match this should cut out some of the cheating.

Valid points but.....

Refs in rugby only use video tech for key decisions, namely awarding tries and foul play. Phase breakdowns, scrums, lineouts etc. are left up to the ref. Even the awarding of penalties in general play is left to the Ref's discretion. My point was that (in football) a review could be called by a Manager whilst the game continued in an attempt to minimise disruption. Penalty reviews would be done prior to the spot kick being taken.

I don't think we'll see a time when footballers have more respect for the human Ref. It simply won't happen unless they are forced. The FA are too gutless to deal with cheating and I think we've adopted a stance in this country where we've decided to let our players cheat in the hope that they'll get as good at it as other continental teams to allow us to compete abroad. That's disgraceful IMO, but also understandable.

I'd quite happily have the free flow disrupted if it meant we could weed out the cheats and thugs.

 

[mpickard2087]

I'm just about ok with goal line technology, I think it should stop there. Rugby is a bad example, the video ref is creeping in more and more and it's arguably gone too far.

I actually quite liked that football was the one major sport that left itself at the mercy of human interpretation and therefore error.

 

[Geyzer Soze]

High def, more cameras at grounds and better lenses have made the job of a referee nearly impossible. They have one chance to see an incident, some of which aren't even on the ball, and they get slated for every mistake. Also the game has got massively faster in the last 5-10 years. Every pundit after watching an incident 10 times has something to say about how the "ref did t see it". Even if you had a "video referee" how he calls the incident will STILL be questioned by some.

Il probably get slated for this but video technology for goal line incidents fine, bring it in. For anything else, such as fouls, penalty calls, free kicks, throw ins, handballs, violen conduct, offsides the list is endless I wouldn't be a big fan of, the game would lose so much momentum it would be shocking.

I get what you're saying there, & IMO it ought to be tool that refs can call on if they wish. Like in cricket. The ref cna make a decision, and if he makes a wrong one there is no more crap on his head than there is now, but they do have a choice to call on a TMO if they want or need to. I don't see the problem at all in that respect