|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 25, 2017 21:03:12 GMT
Watched Koln v Hamburger tonight, ended 1-3, cracking end 0-2 at 90 but 14 mins of added time, Koln scored and the usual trying to grab the ball off the defender who was holding it, Papadolus the defender for Hamburg goes down as if he's been shot, holding his stomach, rolling over and over side to side, referee asks for a look at the video then shows him a yellow card for play acting as nobody did anything to him.
Brilliant, hopefully it will stamp it out, hope it happens here.
|
|
moz
Academy Starlet
Posts: 169 
|
Post by moz on Aug 25, 2017 21:08:51 GMT
OK, how long it took him to watch the replay and make the decision?.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 25, 2017 21:18:24 GMT
Watched Koln v Hamburger tonight, ended 1-3, cracking end 0-2 at 90 but 14 mins of added time, Koln scored and the usual trying to grab the ball off the defender who was holding it, Papadolus the defender for Hamburg goes down as if he's been shot, holding his stomach, rolling over and over side to side, referee asks for a look at the video then shows him a yellow card for play acting as nobody did anything to him. Brilliant, hopefully it will stamp it out, hope it happens here. Incidents like that at the end of a game should really be a red card. Unless it was his second yellow he has "got away with his play acting".  |
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Aug 25, 2017 21:18:43 GMT
OK, how long it took him to watch the replay and make the decision?. Probably longer than it will take as they get used to the technology. In Rugby it really is not a problem. Typically each reviewed decision takes less than a minute and there are probably 5-6 decisions reviewed per game. Remember if there is a pile of bodies and they are trying to determine if a try was scored they need to look at every possible angle. I imagine in football it may be a couple of penalty area fouls and a couple of offside decisions that will be reviewed each game. In rugby it can actually get quite tense. Imagine on Saturday if they went to the video to review Arsenal's goal. You are holding your breath hoping for a miracle because from where you were sitting it looked good. THe whole stadium is watching several angles on the big screen., a huge section of the stadium see the sliver of foot and a roar goes up. The ref looks at it 2 more times and then indicates a goal kick. The crowd goes crazy, it's almost like we scored another goal. It really really isn't the terrible break that some make it out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 22:14:09 GMT
I go to watch Sale Sharks regularly and the video ref isn't a big problem, even for complicated scenarios such as try or no try under a pile of players it only takes a minute or so. For offside or foul play in football it should be much quicker. Well worth being introduced into the game IMO.
|
|
moz
Academy Starlet
Posts: 169
|
Post by moz on Aug 25, 2017 23:32:06 GMT
OK, how long it took him to watch the replay and make the decision?. Probably longer than it will take as they get used to the technology. In Rugby it really is not a problem. Typically each reviewed decision takes less than a minute and there are probably 5-6 decisions reviewed per game. Remember if there is a pile of bodies and they are trying to determine if a try was scored they need to look at every possible angle. I imagine in football it may be a couple of penalty area fouls and a couple of offside decisions that will be reviewed each game. In rugby it can actually get quite tense. Imagine on Saturday if they went to the video to review Arsenal's goal. You are holding your breath hoping for a miracle because from where you were sitting it looked good. THe whole stadium is watching several angles on the big screen., a huge section of the stadium see the sliver of foot and a roar goes up. The ref looks at it 2 more times and then indicates a goal kick. The crowd goes crazy, it's almost like we scored another goal. It really really isn't the terrible break that some make it out to be. I know it isn't terrible but if it took the ref. a few minutes to review his decision it could cause some problems among fans and even the players. For the perfect call would be to make it like challenges in tennis where every team has a certain no. of challenges per halftime and only the team managers will have the right to ask for a challenge which will remove the pressure from the referee to doubt his decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Aug 26, 2017 1:15:15 GMT
I know it isn't terrible but if it took the ref. a few minutes to review his decision it could some problems among fans and even the players. For the perfect call would be to make it like challenges in tennis where every team has a certain no. of challenges per halftime and only the team managers will have the right to ask for a challenge which will remove the pressure from the referee to doubt his decisions. My idea is to have a certain number of challenges per season. If the challenge is successful, it doesn't count against your allowed number of challenges. That discourages frivolous challenges but protects against the most incompetent referee decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Aug 26, 2017 3:43:02 GMT
I know it isn't terrible but if it took the ref. a few minutes to review his decision it could some problems among fans and even the players. For the perfect call would be to make it like challenges in tennis where every team has a certain no. of challenges per halftime and only the team managers will have the right to ask for a challenge which will remove the pressure from the referee to doubt his decisions. My idea is to have a certain number of challenges per season. If the challenge is successful, it doesn't count against your allowed number of challenges. That discourages frivolous challenges but protects against the most incompetent referee decisions. Same as NHL? |
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Aug 26, 2017 3:59:11 GMT
My idea is to have a certain number of challenges per season. If the challenge is successful, it doesn't count against your allowed number of challenges. That discourages frivolous challenges but protects against the most incompetent referee decisions. Same as NHL? I don't know if the NHL rules have changed. Last I heard, the teams risk losing a timeout if the challenge is unsuccessful, so teams can only do it if they have a timeout remaining, and as timeouts reset every game, teams would are not constrained on a season basis. |
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Aug 26, 2017 4:14:15 GMT
I don't know if the NHL rules have changed. Last I heard, the teams risk losing a timeout if the challenge is unsuccessful, so teams can only do it if they have a timeout remaining, and as timeouts reset every game, teams would are not constrained on a season basis. Maybe one unsuccessful challenge per game but unlike hockey the manager can not have access to video replay. Put the manager in the same position as the ref when he made the call. On that basis you would expect limited challenges unless the manager thought the ref had truly made a fuck up? |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 26, 2017 6:00:43 GMT
OK, how long it took him to watch the replay and make the decision?. about 15 seconds, the game was stopped as koln were celebrating a goal. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 26, 2017 6:01:28 GMT
OK, how long it took him to watch the replay and make the decision?. Probably longer than it will take as they get used to the technology. In Rugby it really is not a problem. Typically each reviewed decision takes less than a minute and there are probably 5-6 decisions reviewed per game. Remember if there is a pile of bodies and they are trying to determine if a try was scored they need to look at every possible angle. I imagine in football it may be a couple of penalty area fouls and a couple of offside decisions that will be reviewed each game. In rugby it can actually get quite tense. Imagine on Saturday if they went to the video to review Arsenal's goal. You are holding your breath hoping for a miracle because from where you were sitting it looked good. THe whole stadium is watching several angles on the big screen., a huge section of the stadium see the sliver of foot and a roar goes up. The ref looks at it 2 more times and then indicates a goal kick. The crowd goes crazy, it's almost like we scored another goal. It really really isn't the terrible break that some make it out to be. it took about 15 seconds |
|
moz
Academy Starlet
Posts: 169
|
Post by moz on Aug 26, 2017 9:13:28 GMT
I know it isn't terrible but if it took the ref. a few minutes to review his decision it could some problems among fans and even the players. For the perfect call would be to make it like challenges in tennis where every team has a certain no. of challenges per halftime and only the team managers will have the right to ask for a challenge which will remove the pressure from the referee to doubt his decisions. My idea is to have a certain number of challenges per season. If the challenge is successful, it doesn't count against your allowed number of challenges. That discourages frivolous challenges but protects against the most incompetent referee decisions. IMHO per season will be more problematic for teams since managers could be sacked any time during the season which will leave any new manager at disadvantage if the sacked manager used most of the challenges that's why I think per game is more suitable. |
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Aug 26, 2017 9:26:54 GMT
I agree that challenges per game is the best approach. It would limit the amount of time spent on reviews and also any suggestion of referee error or bias in whether or not to go to a review.
|
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Aug 26, 2017 9:43:30 GMT
OK, how long it took him to watch the replay and make the decision?. Probably longer than it will take as they get used to the technology. In Rugby it really is not a problem. Typically each reviewed decision takes less than a minute and there are probably 5-6 decisions reviewed per game. Remember if there is a pile of bodies and they are trying to determine if a try was scored they need to look at every possible angle. I imagine in football it may be a couple of penalty area fouls and a couple of offside decisions that will be reviewed each game. In rugby it can actually get quite tense. Imagine on Saturday if they went to the video to review Arsenal's goal. You are holding your breath hoping for a miracle because from where you were sitting it looked good. THe whole stadium is watching several angles on the big screen., a huge section of the stadium see the sliver of foot and a roar goes up. The ref looks at it 2 more times and then indicates a goal kick. The crowd goes crazy, it's almost like we scored another goal. It really really isn't the terrible break that some make it out to be. Answer to that scenario is to ban showing multi-angle replays on big screen,think video referrals are the way to stamp at cheating  |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 26, 2017 9:49:54 GMT
My idea is to have a certain number of challenges per season. If the challenge is successful, it doesn't count against your allowed number of challenges. That discourages frivolous challenges but protects against the most incompetent referee decisions. IMHO per season will be more problematic for teams since managers could be sacked any time during the season which will leave any new manager at disadvantage if the sacked manager used most of the challenges that's why I think per game is more suitable. I don't think this idea would work. Let's say a team has a challenge left and the score is 0-0, they concede a corner in injury time and the opposition scores. Now there is no obvious infringement spotted by any party but heck they've got a challenge left so why not have a look at the video anyway? Invariably there's then a decent chance when you look at any corner in slow mo, that you might find some sort of infringement somewhere and if one is found, then the challenge is upheld. Ergo the goal is disallowed. That can't be right, surely? |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 26, 2017 9:58:49 GMT
VAR as it is now is an absolute farce.
There is no standardised way of people doing it. Each ref seems to use it differently.
It takes way too long and spoils the game.
There's just no need for it in football. Goal line technology is where it should start and end.
|
|
