We need video reviews in football, there is no logical reason to be without them.

[Hazardousman]

After today it was the final nail in the coffin so to speak, another pathetic performance from a PL referee.

Now let's say for example you aren't the "tinfoil hat" type and you completely ignore the possibility of match fixing and corruption, well then that leaves us with two possibilities 1.The referees are completely incompetent and not fit for the job in which case they need investigating and retraining, I know that there is always an element of human error involved but honestly, when you are looking directly at things along with your linesman and you are STILL incapable of making the right decision then that is just ridiculous.

2.Bias from the refs because of favouring certain teams and disliking others even if it just subconsciously, the media plays a huge part in this and last season we witnessed the impact it had on refs when dealing with Leicester, the second point is more controversial than the first however both of these points and the possibility of corruption leads to one simple and single answer...

Remove human error.

It's 2016, we have cameras in every part of each stadium, we have cameras that can spot someone picking their nose from a mile away, we have cameras that could probably provide a first person view of a bird shitting on Ashley Young's mouth at this point so why have we not got video reviews?

I have heard the argument "It would waste time, it would slow the game down" I heard this very same argument about goal line technology and lo and behold it did nothing, if anything video reviews would speed the game up as you would avoid the 5 mins of pissing and moaning from whatever player is protesting their innocence, all of the nonsense would stop as the evidence would exist to shut them up.

Not only that it would clean the game up, players would avoid diving more if not all together for fear of punishment in a game, refs would be more protected from their own bad decisions because even if they were incompetent then they could rectify their mistakes, also it completely removes any possibility of corruption, there are so many advantages to it that it literally baffles me as to why it isn't happening?

Has anybody started a petition over this yet to the FA? Is it even possible to do so? This game NEEDS it, football should be, at the bare minimum, fair.

 

[stevenurse]

After today it was the final nail in the coffin so to speak, another pathetic performance from a PL referee.

Now let's say for example you aren't the "tinfoil hat" type and you completely ignore the possibility of match fixing and corruption, well then that leaves us with two possibilities 1.The referees are completely incompetent and not fit for the job in which case they need investigating and retraining, I know that there is always an element of human error involved but honestly, when you are looking directly at things along with your linesman and you are STILL incapable of making the right decision then that is just ridiculous.

2.Bias from the refs because of favouring certain teams and disliking others even if it just subconsciously, the media plays a huge part in this and last season we witnessed the impact it had on refs when dealing with Leicester, the second point is more controversial than the first however both of these points and the possibility of corruption leads to one simple and single answer...

Remove human error.

It's 2016, we have cameras in every part of each stadium, we have cameras that can spot someone picking their nose from a mile away, we have cameras that could probably provide a first person view of a bird shitting on Ashley Young's mouth at this point so why have we not got video reviews?

I have heard the argument "It would waste time, it would slow the game down" I heard this very same argument about goal line technology and lo and behold it did nothing, if anything video reviews would speed the game up as you would avoid the 5 mins of pissing and moaning from whatever player is protesting their innocence, all of the nonsense would stop as the evidence would exist to shut them up.

Not only that it would clean the game up, players would avoid diving more if not all together for fear of punishment in a game, refs would be more protected from their own bad decisions because even if they were incompetent then they could rectify their mistakes, also it completely removes any possibility of corruption, there are so many advantages to it that it literally baffles me as to why it isn't happening?

Has anybody started a petition over this yet to the FA? Is it even possible to do so? This game NEEDS it, football should be, at the bare minimum, fair.

I agree but it's a difficult one to bring in. The biggest decision would be where does it stop with regards to the replays? Goal line technology works as its a definitive action and only occurs every so often. Do we have referrals for fouls? Offsides? Throw ins? Goal kicks/corners? Where does it end?

The fact the sport is so fluid also doesn't help as multiple wrong decisions could occur at the same time. What if a referral is called for a potential foul for pulling at a corner, but the corner was wrongly awarded, from a free kick that was subsequently found to be wrongly awarded?

It works in sports like cricket, American football as they are very stop/start and to a degree in rugby as they have an award system that allows it to be beneficial in the penalty place kick. Football already has the advantage rule which is "our" equivalent but of course that isn't ruled by cameras and is still open to human error.

I would agree they need some help and now the technology is in place it wouldn't surprise me if offside referrals come in relatively soon. Even then it is far from definitive, for goals scored and therefore awarded/disallowed it would work but why should there be a referral for a chance that leads to a goal, as opposed to a great chance that is halted because of a wrong linesmans flag?

 

[werty]

The key is where to you draw the line? Are we going to be reviewing every foul and every throw in decision?

 

[Annekcma]

Give each manager a couple of appeals to use per game. If they get it right they keep their appeal, get it wrong they lose it.

It won't slow the game down. You already get big stoppages on big calls for the players to throw a tantrum at the refs. Plus it'll only be 1/2 times a game. Is making the game 1minutes longer really that big of a price to pay for getting things right?

 

[chrissivad]

Give each manager a couple of appeals to use per game. If they get it right they keep their appeal, get it wrong they lose it.

It won't slow the game down. You already get big stoppages on big calls for the players to throw a tantrum at the refs. Plus it'll only be 1/2 times a game. Is making the game 1minutes longer really that big of a price to pay for getting things right?

When would the managers be able to appeal?
would the game stop for an appeal or would you let the game play on until the ball is out of play to go back and review?

 

[Pellshek]

Kane misses chances. de Gea lets in goals. Klopp picks the wrong formation. Chairmen pay too much for players.

But we expect perfection from referees?

Seems to me that PL refs are performing at the same elite level as players, coaches and administrators, and expecting a higher standard from them than from everyone else is unreasonable.

Human error is part and parcel of the game. It gives the game texture and the fans something to talk about. It's a challenging variable for the players and managers to deal with through a season.

Football, unlike cricket or tennis, is an inexact science. A machine can tell you if it's lbw, or if the tennis ball is in or out, but no machine can tell you whether a tackle from behind is actually from the side, or whether a dive was simulation or not. Video tech would end up being inconclusive or controversial so often that the upheaval and interruption in-game would not be worth it.

I say a strong no to video technology.

 

[Annekcma]

When would the managers be able to appeal?
would the game stop for an appeal or would you let the game play on until the ball is out of play to go back and review?

The officials are all mic'd up so they say to the 4th official who lets the ref know. If the outcome of appeal doesn't affect the play just have the game resume where it was left off with an indirect free kick.

 

[chrissivad]

The officials are all mic'd up so they say to the 4th official who lets the ref know. If the outcome of appeal doesn't affect the play just have the game resume where it was left off with an indirect free kick.

But what happens when managers start to use it to break up an attack?

 

[Annekcma]

But what happens when managers start to use it to break up an attack?

Well there aren't that many appeals so it's unlikely that's going to be an issue and if it is, lets give the ref the power to make the decision of when to stop the game to go back to the review. It's only going to be an issue on things like counter attacks so it's not going to be a case of having to go back several minutes of play.

 

[Spurs' Pipe Dreams]

Goals, red cards and penalty decisions (if given) only. Each side has one appeal per half, they appeal and get it wrong they lose it, get it right they keep it.

There are gaps in play after a goals scored, player sent off and setting up a penalty so would not lengthen the game or stop the flow of play (it's already been stopped).

To appeal a red card it would have to be a straight red, the ref can send off for two yellows without repercussions. How many times has an offside goal being given or a foul outside the box been given in?

These are the only times it is a yes/no, black/white the rest is down to the ref and it also doesn't impede on his authority too much.

 

[Lappi]

I disagree.

1) Most of the time, teams would want a replay for an incident without the ball having gone out of play. Who decides to stop the game then? The ref? The manager? Considering that the transition from one side's attack to another's is one of the most dangerous periods in a game, and one of the most common times someone will want a reply, stopping the game for one in these situations will be hugely problematic. Say we're playing Liverpool, 0-0 on 70 mins. They're attacking our box, and one of their players falls over in the area. The ball breaks to use and we start haring up the pitch for a counter. But, no, wait! Klopp asks for a replay, not because he things it was a foul but to stop the game our counter. Can you imagine how infuriating that would be? I'd take 5 unjust penalties against us year over shit like that happening every week.

2) One of the best things about football is its fluidity. Stopping it for a minute at a time to watch endless replays will be very tedious if you're watching it

3) Shit happens. Yes, conceding a goal which was offside is annoying, and bad luck, but it's also annoying and bad luck if an opposition right back pings it in from 40 yards against you, and then next game gives away a penalty against your rivals. Making a few decisions slightly more correct isn't going to make football much more fair, and imo a large part of the appeal sometimes is how unfair it can be. Embrace it!

 

[Lappi]

That said, I'd definitely in favour of more post game disciplinary action. If a video reply after the game shows someone dived for a penalty, ban them for a game. Also rescind the silly rule that if a referee gives someone a yellow card for a foul, they can't be punished further for. The idea that this rule undermines referee's authority and makes them seem fallible it ridiculous. Of course they're fallible, they can't make correct decisions all the time.

 

[teok]

I think what this boils down to is that currently you are asking a referee to do some thing that is impossible. Then when he fails at this task he becomes the focus of all the criticism.

Before every thing was televised this was just part of the game but now it has just become farcical. Millions of people watching live games and every one in the stands knows what really happened but the guy on the pitch who could actually use this information doesn't.

The exact implementation of them should really just be ironed out through constant testing and trials in smaller comps/leagues (as is the case with goal line now). Just because some thing can be gamed doesn't mean it should be thrown out, just tinkered with.

 

[haxman]

Use it to check the validity of goals. By the time the players had stopped celebrating and got the ball back to the centre circle they'd have the answer more often than not.

 

[aliyid]

After today it was the final nail in the coffin so to speak, another pathetic performance from a PL referee

Biggest problem is that not all decisions are black and white.

What wrong decision on sat was your "final nail in the coffin" that was so outrageous that you had to come on here and start the thread?

For me the main decisions were all correct
Liverpools pen - 1st view thought was a dive, 2nd viewing thought he tripped himself, 3rd viewing his foot knocked onto Lamellas shin and was enough to make him fall, deliberate foul no but clumsy yes

Liverpools offside - just offside, wasn't by much and seen them given but was just ahead of last defender.

Liverpools pen appeal - corner hadn't been taken when player threw himself to the ground so can't be pen and even then when you slow it down Jan is pulling his shoulder one way yet he magically spins and falls the other way around

 

[danedan679]

Football, unlike cricket or tennis, is an inexact science. A machine can tell you if it's lbw, or if the tennis ball is in or out, but no machine can tell you whether a tackle from behind is actually from the side, or whether a dive was simulation or not. Video tech would end up being inconclusive or controversial so often that the upheaval and interruption in-game would not be worth it.

that's exactly why we don't have it.

i think sky shouldn't be allowed to play replays! I remember back in the 80's watching the big match, or something, where there was some kind of industrial action by the people who did the replays so there weren't any. it was great! and nico claesen scored!

 

[muertecaza]

To me there is a pretty logical reason why not to introduce video review: it's absolutely fucking unbearable in practice.

To me the worst example is the NBA. It has a a rule called the "clear path foul" rule. In order to encourage high tempo scoring, they created a rule that inflicts an extra penalty when you foul a player with a "clear path" to the basket. In practice, however, the rule only serves to inflict mind-numbingly idiotic stopages in play (e.g. ).

Please please can we not have this shit in football.

 

[nightgoat]

Biggest problem is that not all decisions are black and white.

What wrong decision on sat was your "final nail in the coffin" that was so outrageous that you had to come on here and start the thread?

For me the main decisions were all correct
Liverpools pen - 1st view thought was a dive, 2nd viewing thought he tripped himself, 3rd viewing his foot knocked onto Lamellas shin and was enough to make him fall, deliberate foul no but clumsy yes

Liverpools offside - just offside, wasn't by much and seen them given but was just ahead of last defender.

Liverpools pen appeal - corner hadn't been taken when player threw himself to the ground so can't be pen and even then when you slow it down Jan is pulling his shoulder one way yet he magically spins and falls the other way around

Liverpool's penalty was not a penalty. Janssen should have had a penalty. Mane should have been off in the first half. Three big, game defining errors by the referee, all in favour of one team.