New video technology use being discussed

[talkshowhost86]

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.

Well now we're going into the fundamental differences between the sports, which by and large boils down to the fact that footballers and football fans are idiots and rugby players and fans have a sense of sportsmanship.

Sadly that won't change.

 

[Geyzer Soze]

Well now we're going into the fundamental differences between the sports, which by and large boils down to the fact that footballers and football fans are idiots and rugby players and fans have a sense of sportsmanship.

Sadly that won't change.

Also the governing of the game. Rugby is governed by a largely forward thinking, well run organisation which has the wellbeing of the sport at heart. Hence its a rapidly improving & innovative game that's gaining in popularity year on year

As opposed to football

 

[ERO]

A word about handball as it was mentioned earlier as a sport with successful video refereeing. As the other sports mentioned it's not really comparable to football in the way it flows, with many more stops and breaks throughout. Secondly, the video technology was only introduced this year, and only for goal line decisions - not extensive refereeing. And in addition to this, the system worked so badly that they scrapped it during the women's world cup due to a clear error. Not the best example...

 

[SpursManChris]

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.

Has it ruined rugby do you think? And in rugby, do they only go to video ref when a try has been scored or can they go to them at any point in the game? In the NRL in Australia, I swear they only review whether a try should stand.

 

[thfc1989]

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.

Whilst it may well be cliched, it totally slowed down rugby and in my opinion made it worse.

I wouldn't mind a system where only penalties for diving could be reviewed, however anymore than that would be overkill in my opinion.

 

[mightyspur]

Whilst it may well be cliched, it totally slowed down rugby and in my opinion made it worse

You are in course entitled to that opinion, but many people in the game, would disagree whether it made it worse or not but its a fairly moot point anyway as rugby is a completely different game and the use of technology in football would have to be implemented differently for it to be successful.

 

[Danners9]

The Aussie league is going to bring in video refereeing in round 26, in 6 weeks' time. I'm watching Perth vs Brisbane now and they are testing it with a normal A-League ref and 2 others up in the stands with tv screens and a 'hawk eye' system. The ref is mic'd up to the on-field ref.

Round 26 is the penultimate round of games in the regular season. Then there are finals.

Funnily enough, tonight in the Sydney Derby, Sydney FC were denied a pen right at the death which could have made it 1-1 and preserved their 19 game unbeaten streak. A video ref would have probably given it. TV pundits afterwards were pretty sure it should have been given.

AND, in this game, Perth scored to make it 1-1 but the cross leading to the goal was clearly out of play. Ref and linesman didn't see it (lino was on the other side and would have to look through the posts...), but a video ref would. Commentators lamenting that correct decisions in these circumstances are 6 weeks away.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

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.

The flow of the game ? I'm sure I read a piece recently which showed the ball was in play about 48 minutes in one PL game this season (Palace I think).

The game doesn't even have to stop while the review occurs, just play on while the review occurs and then if the video review shows a decision needs to change, just stop the game and award the correct decision and off you go.

 

[nailsy]

The flow of the game ? I'm sure I read a piece recently which showed the ball was in play about 48 minutes in one PL game this season (Palace I think).

The game doesn't even have to stop while the review occurs, just play on while the review occurs and then if the video review shows a decision needs to change, just stop the game and award the correct decision and off you go.

I don't think you can play on and then call play back if a decision was missed. Just stop the game and wait for ten or twenty seconds and make the decision.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I don't think you can play on and then call play back if a decision was missed. Just stop the game and wait for ten or twenty seconds and make the decision.

Why, refs play on now sometimes and wait to see if an advantage occurs and if not they bring it back. That way - if the video shows the right decision has already been made, you don't even have to stop the game at all for it.

 

[nailsy]

Why, refs play on now sometimes and wait to see if an advantage occurs and if not they bring it back. That way - if the video shows the right decision has already been made, you don't even have to stop the game at all for it.

I guess it depends on the situation and how long it takes. Say there's a tackle in the box that the ref wants to look at, the ball could be cleared and set up a quick counter attack for a goal at the other end all within 10 seconds of the initial challenge. If the replay then proved there was a foul the ref would have to deny the team a goal and give a penalty against them. I can't imagine that would go down too well with the players or the fans. It would be much easier to just wait for the tv review in the first place. I guess on the hand if it was a clean tackle and you stopped the game you've just stopped a goal being scored for no reason .

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I guess it depends on the situation and how long it takes. Say there's a tackle in the box that the ref wants to look at, the ball could be cleared and set up a quick counter attack for a goal at the other end all within 10 seconds of the initial challenge. If the replay then proved there was a foul the ref would have to deny the team a goal and give a penalty against them. I can't imagine that would go down too well with the players or the fans. .

But that's fine, that's exactly the outcome we want isn't it, instead of retrospectively, post match looking back and saying the ref got that wrong and it resulted in the other team scoring 10 seconds later. So what if the goal ends up being disallowed, if there was a foul committed by the scoring team 10 seconds earlier then they shouldn't be allowed to score.

I guess on the hand if it was a clean tackle and you stopped the game you've just stopped a goal being scored for no reason .

But that will happen anyway, so no difference.

 

[michaelden]

Man Utd are against any video technology until they can find a way for it to work for them

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Some shit today that could have been solved with video. The ManU/Bournemouth stuff. The handball by a Burnley player that gets given as a pen for Burnley. The Can incident for Liverpool.

 

[nailsy]

Some shit today that could have been solved with video. The ManU/Bournemouth stuff. The handball by a Burnley player that gets given as a pen for Burnley. The Can incident for Liverpool.

It's no different from most other weekend really.

It looks like they may trial video technology in next year's FA Cup.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39157887

 

[slartibartfast]

To quote Life of Brian "Theres far too many people with a vested interest in the status quo" (as far as I can see Reg).

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Been a bad week for officials, inspired me to rant:

https://forensiconions.wordpress.com

Set The Video

A couple of days ago I watched two of the world’s biggest teams duke it out for a place in the Champions League semi finals at the Bernabeu in Madrid. Let’s be honest, it wasn’t a tactical tour de force from either team, and it wasn’t an aesthetic footballing feast of flowing synchronicity either, but for 84 minutes it was bloody entertaining match that ebbed and flowed.

We had some of the world’s best footballers on show (some, perhaps, not as “best” as the once were it has to be said) playing in one of the worlds most iconic and atmospheric amphitheatres, 80,000 fanatical fans creating a fervent atmosphere, another few hundred million watching on their HD, 4K, curved flat screens; basically it doesn’t get much bigger than this, this is the type of game that UEFA knows sells it’s flagship tournament to the world’s great unwashed, this was the Monaco Grand Prix of football, not the main event, but a biggy.

What a shame then that the game ended up the victim of a homicide, with the post match morphing into an episode of Silent Witness, with the watching world – pundit’s professional and amateur – performing an autopsy on the corpse – and all coming to the same conclusion, that the killer of this spectacle was the officiating.....

Full article:

https://forensiconions.wordpress.com


.

 

[lol]

simply because they are archaic. I watched the rugby 7s live, so i finally experienced first hand live action, how much the video replay delays the game, and i can safely say its negligible. Its the same amount of time taken as someone walking off the pitch when getting subbed, or being tended to for injury, or a goal celebration... And its not like ref needs to run to a special room either - he just watched the instant reply on the big screen like the rest of us, and every angle was clear as day.

We're talking about try conversions, that means making a call on whether the ball - amidst that mass of piled up bodies - touched the line first or whether the opponent managed to slot his hand under the ball before it hit the ground.

Such minutiae buried under a heap of men, and it can still be resolved with a negligible delay - theres no reason why u cant make a call on a foul.

Football is just stuck in the middle ages where they think that the injustice of decisions adds to the drama of the game, while failing to see that a higher level of tension and suspense can be created when the entire crowd is watching every frame of the replay, yet without the injustice of a botched call

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Great to see the use of Video at the Confederations Cup, correctly changing two goals (one against and one for Chile, ironically the same player - Vargas)