New video technology use being discussed

[Donki]

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

Ok say its a possible foul on a player, Lamela has won the ball in the final third with Kane in an advanced threatening position, the ref isn't sure if it was a fair challenge. If they don't call on the video ref and its found Lamela did infact foul the player they will be slated, if they do call on it and its found there wasn't a foul, he would have denied our team a goal scoring oppertunity. If he waits until the phase ends and we score there is EVEN more pressure on him as to what to do.

Were not in a game like cricket or hockeywhere the game unfolds mostly in phases or plays.

 

[Geyzer Soze]

Ok say its a possible foul on a player, Lamela has won the ball in the final third with Kane in an advanced threatening position, the ref isn't sure if it was a fair challenge. If they don't call on the video ref and its found Lamela did infact foul the player they will be slated, if they do call on it and its found there wasn't a foul, he would have denied our team a goal scoring oppertunity. If he waits until the phase ends and we score there is EVEN more pressure on him as to what to do.

Were not in a game like cricket or hockeywhere the game unfolds mostly in phases or plays.

good point and analogy

But then the ref shouldn't use it for those calls to stop play, he should use it at a dead ball point if he needs to

 

[mightyspur]

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 don't think it would at all. All the video ref would do is be another set of eyes for the on pitch ref to either allow him to quickly review a specific incident or bring something to the attention of the ref. I don't advocate the on pitch ref goes to the video ref for every call, but for major calls, such as penalties, bookings (some not all), sending off then the opinion of a video ref who is able to view the incident again from a different angle would benefit the ref.

As an example, say a player goes in hard on another player and makes a challenge that appears to be dangerous. On pitch ref calls a free kick and says to the video ref that he is considering sending the player off for dangerous tackle. The video ref (who would have also seen the incident in real time) would be able to quickly look at the incident and either agree or disagree. It could be addressed and sorted in the same amount of time it takes now when players crowd the ref etc etc and may just save the perpetrator from being unfairly dismissed because his tackle, was actually good and not reckless and perhaps only deserves a yellow

Will slow down the game too much, No need.

This is such a clichéd argument. There is very little evidence to suggest if implemented correctly that a video ref will slow the game down

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.

Unfortunately due to the amount of money at top level football it's just not right. Some decisions could see a team (and therefore a business) loss millions. That's not right in my eyes.

 

[Donki]

good point and analogy

But then the ref shouldn't use it for those calls to stop play, he should use it at a dead ball point if he needs to

Ok it could work If its at a dead ball situation, free kick, penalty, throwin, goal kick, corner kick. The problem here is the ref at that point has made his decision, and while a review would get a perfect result MOST of the time it will be over riding his status as the guy who is running the game.

Also how many times do you see players appealing for ALL of the situations above and how often is it not quite 100% clear who had the final touch? Thats not even going into was it ball to hand or hand to ball, did he go through the player to get the ball, did he win the ball, was it inside the box or outside the box, was there contact... there isn't going to be a solution that will work for all situations.

 

[mightyspur]

Ok say its a possible foul on a player, Lamela has won the ball in the final third with Kane in an advanced threatening position, the ref isn't sure if it was a fair challenge. If they don't call on the video ref and its found Lamela did infact foul the player they will be slated, if they do call on it and its found there wasn't a foul, he would have denied our team a goal scoring oppertunity. If he waits until the phase ends and we score there is EVEN more pressure on him as to what to do.

Were not in a game like cricket or hockeywhere the game unfolds mostly in phases or plays.

The video ref will be reviewing alongside the pitch ref in real time. If the pitch ref allows play to continue he can request the video ref to review whilst play continues. If the video ref sees the foul it is called back. If he says no foul, then there is no harm. But what if we score and it is a foul?! I hear some people cry. Well the foul still counts and the goal is disallowed, just like occurs when a ref calls a foul when the ball goes in the net at the same time.

 

[Geyzer Soze]

Ok it could work If its at a dead ball situation, free kick, penalty, throwin, goal kick, corner kick. The problem here is the ref at that point has made his decision, and while a review would get a perfect result MOST of the time it will be over riding his status as the guy who is running the game.

Also how many times do you see players appealing for ALL of the situations above and how often is it not quite 100% clear who had the final touch? Thats not even going into was it ball to hand or hand to ball, did he go through the player to get the ball, did he win the ball, was it inside the box or outside the box, was there contact... there isn't going to be a solution that will work for all situations.

No, there isn't going to be a solution that works for all situations ... but why deny the ref a useful tool that he can use (if he wants to) for other situations on that basis?

 

[mightyspur]

Ok it could work If its at a dead ball situation, free kick, penalty, throwin, goal kick, corner kick. The problem here is the ref at that point has made his decision, and while a review would get a perfect result MOST of the time it will be over riding his status as the guy who is running the game.

Also how many times do you see players appealing for ALL of the situations above and how often is it not quite 100% clear who had the final touch? Thats not even going into was it ball to hand or hand to ball, did he go through the player to get the ball, did he win the ball, was it inside the box or outside the box, was there contact... there isn't going to be a solution that will work for all situations.

I agree with that to a certain extent, because even after reviewing something multiple times it can be difficult to interpret what has happened especially when the video ref will also be under pressure to make a decision. However it is quite simple to put guidelines in that can state what happens in the event of a non-decision or one that isn't clear, such as go with original decision made by on pitch ref etc.

Plus NOT doing something because there are scenarios where it doesn't fit isn't really a good enough reason to not introduce it.

 

[Donki]

I don't think it would at all. All the video ref would do is be another set of eyes for the on pitch ref to either allow him to quickly review a specific incident or bring something to the attention of the ref. I don't advocate the on pitch ref goes to the video ref for every call, but for major calls, such as penalties, bookings (some not all), sending off then the opinion of a video ref who is able to view the incident again from a different angle would benefit the ref.

As an example, say a player goes in hard on another player and makes a challenge that appears to be dangerous. On pitch ref calls a free kick and says to the video ref that he is considering sending the player off for dangerous tackle. The video ref (who would have also seen the incident in real time) would be able to quickly look at the incident and either agree or disagree. It could be addressed and sorted in the same amount of time it takes now when players crowd the ref etc etc and may just save the perpetrator from being unfairly dismissed because his tackle, was actually good and not reckless and perhaps only deserves a yellow

This is such a clichéd argument. There is very little evidence to suggest if implemented correctly that a video ref will slow the game down

Unfortunately due to the amount of money at top level football it's just not right. Some decisions could see a team (and therefore a business) loss millions. That's not right in my eyes.

Again in that event the ref has already made the call so the play would be stopped, I would ask you though what if he called the video ref and the video ref came back and said it wasn't actually a foul and the tackler won the ball?

 

[Donki]

No, there isn't going to be a solution that works for all situations ... but why deny the ref a useful tool that he can use (if he wants to) for other situations on that basis?

Reworded this, I could see its usefulness in this senario as the ref has already made the call and is simply looking for further imput, as he would from the third offical as well. The refs initial decision could be wrong on further analysis.

 

[mightyspur]

Again in that event the ref has already made the call so the play would be stopped, I would ask you though what if he called the video ref and the video ref came back and said it wasn't actually a foul and the tackler won the ball?

Then the ref has to give a drop ball and allow play to continue after the restart.

If anything that scenario is a good reason how video technology will actually speed the game up as referees would be less likely to call 50/50 decisions and stop the game as they know it could be reviewed in real time by the video ref.

 

[Donki]

Then the ref has to give a drop ball and allow play to continue after the restart.

If anything that scenario is a good reason how video technology will actually speed the game up as referees would be less likely to call 50/50 decisions and stop the game as they know it could be reviewed in real time by the video ref.

That would be hardly fair on a team, like ourselves that rely on the flow of the game, winning the ball high up the pitch and attacking quickly? Also once the technology comes do you not think that if its not called apon when a manger has a ligitamit reason to feel harddone by, ie the ref does miss something he wont be standign there saying "why was the video ref not used when its there and available?".

 

[mightyspur]

That would be hardly fair on a team, like ourselves that rely on the flow of the game, winning the ball high up the pitch and attacking quickly?

I don't understand what you are saying? Using your example, if Lamela wins the ball high up the pitch and the on pitch ref thinks it's a foul he will blow his whistle. That's what happens now right?

If we have a video referee, same scenario, on pitch ref doesn't blow his whistle, but immediately instructs his video ref to review as the game continues. Video ref comes back saying "fair challenge", then spurs have benefited (or rather haven't been unfairly penalised). If the video ref comes back saying "unfair challenge, free-kick" the game is immediately stopped and play is taken back.

If the referee stops the game and the video ref say's "fair challenge" (which could happen, but such is life). Then it's just a drop ball to restart.

Over time, referees would stop calling 50/50s and let play continue wouldn't they, thus speeding up the game.

 

[Donki]

I don't understand what you are saying? Using your example, if Lamela wins the ball high up the pitch and the on pitch ref thinks it's a foul he will blow his whistle. That's what happens now right?

If we have a video referee, same scenario, on pitch ref doesn't blow his whistle, but immediately instructs his video ref to review as the me continues. Video ref comes back saying "fair challenge", then spurs have benefited (or rather haven't been unfairly penalised). If the video ref comes back saying "unfair challenge, free-kick" the game is immediately stopped and play is taken back.

If the referee stops the game and the video ref say's "fair challenge" (which could happen, but such is life). Then it's just a drop ball to restart.

Over time, referees would stop calling 50/50s and let play continue wouldn't they, thus speeding up the game.

Then you might as will simply just have a video ref and simply a runner on the pitch relaying his decisions, like I said earlier. You will still be relying on the on pitch ref to ask for the review. It wont stop the off ball incidents that aren't seen or incidents that the on pitch ref don't think warrant a review and you will STILL have disgruntled managers asking why a missed incident was not reviewed. This whole argument or debate rather depends a lot on how a video ref is implimented.

 

[mightyspur]

Then you might as will simply just have a video ref and simply a runner on the pitch relaying his decisions, like I said earlier. You will still be relying on the on pitch ref to ask for the review. It wont stop the off ball incidents that aren't seen or incidents that the on pitch ref don't think warrant a review and you will STILL have disgruntled managers asking why a missed incident was not reviewed. This whole argument or debate rather depends a lot on how a video ref is implimented.

Sorry I disagree as the on-pitch ref still runs the show and decides when to call on the video ref (at least that is how I would implement it). Off the ball incidents can be handled in one of two ways. If the ref's attention is drawn to it (either by the players, the managers, the assistant referees, then he can request a review and deal with the outcome). If he misses it completely then it will be dealt with after the game.

Yes, I agree with your last sentence, but people who are against it's implementation seem to try and come up with ways it won't work, rather than see how it could improve the game (IMHO).

To use a rather silly analogy - seat belts were put in cars. Now every journey we have to wear one and most of the time we don't need them, but occasionally when we do need them they are of great benefit and sometimes (although much rarer) they make no difference. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have seatbelts at all. (I fully appreciate that is a ridiculous analogy)

 

[SpursManChris]

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.

Advancements in video production and broadcasting does mean that everyone is a referee while they watch it live on TV. The referees' decisions are judged not on what is seen live but what is seen in the replays. You're right, I mean how often do we think an incident looks at certain way live, or after watching a replay from one or more angles, but then another angle changes our minds. And when its the eyes of a referee verses the eyes of a High-Def camera production, complete with high zoom multi-angle slow-motion replays, there's only one winner. However there are still some shocking errors which are made, which seem blatantly obvious and is just poor refereeing. These errors did surely happen in the old days, less frequently perhaps, so I struggle to think why someone didn't bring it up decades ago.

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.

Agree that this would be ridiculous if everything was covered but I doubt it will come to that. It will be a sensible approach. I'm surprised you've included penalties in your list of things which you wouldn't want included, that would seem to me like a biggie. I would've thought at least penalty decisions, free-kicks within a certain range (30 yards?) and any ambiguous, uncertain incident which the refs see which would disallow a goal, whether that be, is the goal scoring player offside (limited to goal-scorer in my opinion), did a player foul another player, did the goal scoring player handball it. I would say that the video ref should only come into play if the on field officials ask for it, like what happens in Rugby League, like the above article suggests will happen.

 

[SpursManChris]

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.

Yeah, but 9 times out of 10 it is to see if the ball has contacted the ground. Its a very difficult thing to see and the refs have obviously taken full advantage of the opportunity to always make use of it and therefore they use it all the time. There is no equivalent in football. Ball to the ground over the line is rugby's scoring system. Ball over the line is ours and we have that covered by technology already, at least in the EPL. The hardest part is done in that respect, that really was a technology development that needed to take place, but not anymore, its just the video footage that should be used.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Yeah, but 9 times out of 10 it is to see if the ball has contacted the ground. Its a very difficult thing to see and the refs have obviously taken full advantage of the opportunity to always make use of it and therefore they use it all the time. There is no equivalent in football. Ball to the ground over the line is rugby's scoring system. Ball over the line is ours and we have that covered by technology already, at least in the EPL. The hardest part is done in that respect, that really was a technology development that needed to take place, but not anymore, its just the video footage that should be used.

It really isn't 9 times out of 10 that it's for review of grounding. You get reviews of potentially dangerous tackles, lineout decisions, fights, forward passes, blocking etc etc etc. It's a bit chaotic now and the same would happen if it could be used so freely with football.

I fully support the goal line technology, but I'm fairly certain that if we introduced video technology for football in the same way as we have for rugby, it'll ruin the game.

Having said that I'd be all for them trialing it to see if it works. I suppose we won't know until it's been tried.

 

[Japhet]

It really isn't 9 times out of 10 that it's for review of grounding. You get reviews of potentially dangerous tackles, lineout decisions, fights, forward passes, blocking etc etc etc. It's a bit chaotic now and the same would happen if it could be used so freely with football.

I fully support the goal line technology, but I'm fairly certain that if we introduced video technology for football in the same way as we have for rugby, it'll ruin the game.

Having said that I'd be all for them trialing it to see if it works. I suppose we won't know until it's been tried.

All of the instances you've used above are only in relation to the scoring of a try or potential foulplay. Other than that the Ref is expected to make his own decisions. As far as ruining the game is concerned, I think it would be a free for all if it was permitted to go that far, which is why I suggested a limited review system as used in cricket.

 

[talkshowhost86]

All of the instances you've used above are only in relation to the scoring of a try or potential foulplay. Other than that the Ref is expected to make his own decisions. As far as ruining the game is concerned, I think it would be a free for all if it was permitted to go that far, which is why I suggested a limited review system as used in cricket.

True, although with rugby they seem to be able to go a long long way back in the move which is a bit daft. You'd certainly have the same problem with football.

I agree on allowing teams a number of challenges, but I just cannot see the old farts that run the game implementing that sort of approach. And even if that was allowed, you'd still need to be very clear about how far back they can look in any one move otherwise it'll get silly.

 

[Japhet]

True, although with rugby they seem to be able to go a long long way back in the move which is a bit daft. You'd certainly have the same problem with football.

I agree on allowing teams a number of challenges, but I just cannot see the old farts that run the game implementing that sort of approach. And even if that was allowed, you'd still need to be very clear about how far back they can look in any one move otherwise it'll get silly.

Rugby seems far more able to adapt to changing situations. Rules are very often changed from one season to the next and as you say, there is a very wide window once a decision is up for review. The big difference is that they are able to accept decisions instead of throwing complete tantrums. Refs also allow play to continue (sometimes for a minute or more) to see whether any advantage is gained after an infringement which makes perfect sense to me.