|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 17:15:54 GMT
More than ever nowadays, there seems to be a real groundswell of opinion, calling for the introudction of 'video evidence' to assist referees in making the correct decision as the game is played. Whilst I'm all in favour of making changes that will assist the officials in their decision making, I've never actually heard a proper explanation of how video technology could effectively be used in this regard. The main question I have is ... just when exactly would the technology be made available for the officials to look at? For example: Imagine if in our next home game Gerrard blasts one from outside of the box and the ball comes down off the under side of the bar ... Higgy then hoofs the ball up the pitch over Liverpool's back four, Pericard's pace  leaves them for dead and within a couple of seconds of the incident at our end, Vince has legitimately put the ball in the back of the Scourers' net. Surely the ref (and the linesman) has got to make a split second decision and decide almost instantly whether Gerrard's shot crossed the line, he simply doesn't have the time to consult with somebody replaying the incident on a tv in the stands who he himself might have to replay the incident several times before they can offer an accurate opinion. What happens with offside? The liner waves for offside, the ref blows, the defenders stop, Robbie Keene buries it in the goal, ref consults the video evidence ... it turns out Keene WAS on on-side, surely the goal can't stand can it? I here a lot of people calling for the introduction of technology into the game but I don't really here anything about just how it will be. Anybody? |
|
|
|
Post by sweetandinnocent on Jan 1, 2009 17:22:29 GMT
It worked the other day & it took seconds for the linesman to call the right desicion!...
The ONLY reason they would NOT use it is because the English Premiership and F.A. is hugely corrupt, video evidence would make it difficult to completely stitch matches.....Theres jjust to much at stake money wise for accurate officialing of the game not to be used
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 17:32:04 GMT
FBS
I'll quantify my original post:
When the ball has not gone out of play, how will the video technology be introduced?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by daverichards on Jan 1, 2009 17:35:55 GMT
in American Football, the refs, throw a yellow hanky on the floor if they spot an infringment, if the play has already started it almost always carries on to its natural conclusion and then the Cheif umpire consults with the flag thrower, and someone in the stands advices him by watching the replay (I think)
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 17:42:11 GMT
Indeed they do Dave, I just can't see how this would work for off-side in soccer though? |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Jan 1, 2009 17:45:19 GMT
in American Football, the refs, throw a yellow hanky on the floor if they spot an infringment, if the play has already started it almost always carries on to its natural conclusion and then the Cheif umpire consults with the flag thrower, and someone in the stands advices him by watching the replay (I think) The natural conclusion to American Football and Cricket is only ever a few seconds away. In football it can be 2,3,4,5 minutes until it may go out of play. Should just be left as it is and get on with it. The world isn't a perfect place, why should football be? |
|
|
|
Post by sweetandinnocent on Jan 1, 2009 17:46:19 GMT
I dont have the answers but with a bit of thought the correct and effective procedures could be put in place, maybe if the linesman & REF both wore a headset listening to the fella with the video evidence would be a good start, then just immediatly call play back as the ref would'nt have to consult the linesman for the video evidence results?
|
|
|
|
Post by mongy17 on Jan 1, 2009 17:53:54 GMT
Get rid off the off-side rule, and put an extra ref behind each of the goals. Sorted, NEXT!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2009 17:55:33 GMT
If Video Evidence should be used in football then it would make sense only to be used on contentious decisions so that the manager/captain of the team can call 1 decision each half or 1 per match?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 17:56:05 GMT
That's my point entirely mate. It's all very well people calling for it's introduction, but once you start to think about it, it doesn't actually seem that easy to implement.
|
|
|
|
Post by A-teen_six_T3 on Jan 1, 2009 17:58:59 GMT
I agree with sidders, I think for things like off sides a team can have maybe 1 or 2 challenges
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2009 18:02:34 GMT
I agree with sidders, I think for things like off sides a team can have maybe 1 or 2 challenges It is normally one big fuck up by the ref that turns the game anyway so having a call for VE would be the only way to implement in my view. You get your chance it can happen pretty damn quick (as quick as any injury stoppage) and you have a fair chance to see if the decision was right or wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sweetandinnocent on Jan 1, 2009 18:10:00 GMT
agreed, maybe if just for certain scenarios, such as - a dubious offiside leading to a goal, a sending off offence, a penalty appeal - just game chaning decisions. at the end of the day it can only be fair
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2009 18:14:23 GMT
I don't think is should be overly used I think refs pretty much do what they need to do in games and we have lived with this and it also is part of the games make up. However some things are just so dicey and so much can hang on a serious misjudgment that it needs to be used somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 18:30:19 GMT
On the point about manager's having the opportunity to 'challenge' decisions when there's a break in play ... Who is going to officiate their challenge? Just look at the analysis from pundits on MOTD or Goals on Sunday, they can replay the incident ten times over and still have complete disagreement from the annalists. If this system was in place, would clubs be able to appeal against the decision of video referee at the game, the following Monday morning? |
|
|
|
Post by redditchpotter on Jan 1, 2009 18:40:46 GMT
The way it works in american football,if a team manager appeals against something and it is found to be a fruitless appeal,they are charged with losing a time-out.
My point would be,what would be stopping managers from appealing every 5 mins?
What would be the penalty for needless appeals?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 18:46:57 GMT
Redditch I think posters further up the thread were suggesting that a manager would only have the right to make a challenge once or twice in the game, so you couldn't make lots of needles appeals, there wouldn't i imagine be a penalty if an appeal was deemed incorrect.
This still doesn't work for me though, based on the points I raised earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul2106 on Jan 1, 2009 18:58:15 GMT
IMVHO i think video evidence should be limited to 1 appeal per manager and should he get it right he keeps the appeal to use again later in the game should he see fit. I personally think it will add to the drama if the crowds can see the replays and be informed of the refs decison via the p.a
It should be considered for the following:
1. Penalty decisions i.e are they inside the box, did he make contact etc.
2. Red cards - did he touch the ball etc.
3. Goals - Did it cross the line.
4. Goals - If the player who has scored the goal and play has stopped the the decision can be appealed. i.e off sides
All of the above naturally result in stoppage in play and therefore not interupt the flow of the game. Video evidence apart from these should not be allowed.
I would aslo add that if the evidence is inconclusive either way the original decison is upheld. This would also enable us to see which refs didn't deserve to officiate in the league as it would highlight their mistakes. They are now proffessional so should be judged on their performance
|
|
|
|
Post by redditchpotter on Jan 1, 2009 18:58:18 GMT
The way it works in american football,if a team manager appeals against something and it is found to be a fruitless appeal,they are charged with losing a time-out. My point would be,what would be stopping managers from appealing every 5 mins? What would be the penalty for needless appeals? Also to add to that they play every single minute in a game so the clock,which every one can see would be stopped whilst anything was being reviewed. I would like to see the clock idea in our football,so the timekeeping would be taken out of the refs hands. At least it would take the argument of how much time is added on. |
|
jonnyd
Youth Player
Posts: 377
|
Post by jonnyd on Jan 1, 2009 19:07:44 GMT
Video evidence is coming and will get implemented for key decisions, penalty, goals, sending offs.
Money in football is getting to big for one man to hold all the cards, corruption is a big concern and has already been a problem in Italy.
Furthermore what really gets on my tits is the so called invisible men in the middle seem more and more to be having books released, having after dinner careers and working on analyzing games post matches. Therefore it is important for them to get close to the big name stars and clubs - for example a story about how I should have sent Wayne Rooney and Ronaldo off in a game at Stoke but didn't and they went on to win the game will get more interest than actually sending Wilko off and a story about Stoke losing the game
It stinks
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthews dad on Jan 1, 2009 19:11:11 GMT
The problem lies in EVERY decision being contested throw ins,free kicks,corners etc,each one COULD lead to goal,where do we stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2009 19:40:43 GMT
The problem lies in EVERY decision being contested throw ins,free kicks,corners etc,each one COULD lead to goal,where do we stop. every decision is already contested rightly or wrongly but you only get chance to contenst if it influences a major incident. You can only contest a penalty decision goal line incident etc during that period where it the game would already have stopped. You can contest a throw in or a corner but you then lose your opportunity to appeal again? |
|
|
|
Post by Matthews dad on Jan 1, 2009 19:49:36 GMT
The problem lies in EVERY decision being contested throw ins,free kicks,corners etc,each one COULD lead to goal,where do we stop. every decision is already contested rightly or wrongly but you only get chance to contenst if it influences a major incident. You can only contest a penalty decision goal line incident etc during that period where it the game would already have stopped. You can contest a throw in or a corner but you then lose your opportunity to appeal again? So wrongly awarded throw gets a corner then from that corner a goal is scored???? The only technology that'll work is the goaline one,a black or white decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2009 20:06:54 GMT
every decision is already contested rightly or wrongly but you only get chance to contenst if it influences a major incident. You can only contest a penalty decision goal line incident etc during that period where it the game would already have stopped. You can contest a throw in or a corner but you then lose your opportunity to appeal again? So wrongly awarded throw gets a corner then from that corner a goal is scored???? The only technology that'll work is the goaline one,a black or white decision. That is just my point though would you contest a wrongly give throw in? You have a chance to defend that and in the context of the game that happens. You have less oppurtunity to defend a wrongly given penalty, you have less chance to dissuade a wrongly given sending off, you see my point? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 20:12:29 GMT
But Sidders who defines wrongly?
Aren't a lot of these types of decisions a matter of opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by stokielegend on Jan 1, 2009 20:16:25 GMT
Why should we suddenly use video technology because it didn't affect the game 10 years
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2009 20:19:18 GMT
of course they are and as I have said common sense should be used but every team deserves a chance to contest massive decisions that could evetually cost them the game and video evidence could do that with minimum of fuss. What I am suggesting is just an idea of ways that appeals in match could be done. Yes bones can be picked but I ulimatley feel that some refs are very arrogant in the way they snub big decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul2106 on Jan 1, 2009 20:19:23 GMT
Look you wouldnt want to contest a throw in, if they do and its correct they would lose their right to appeal other decisions!!!!!!!!! Its this ridiculous argument that really pisses me off!
And for the record if a goal is not given and the other team goes up the other end and scores immediately after the incident; ( one phase of play) and an objection has been lodged - throwing a towel or something to signify the intent and the goal was proved to have been scored the other teams goal is disallowed and the game is re-started at the centre circle. Job done
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2009 20:21:15 GMT
Why should we suddenly use video technology because it didn't affect the game 10 years Had it been round then maybe we would of been asked for it to be used. In fact it has been a suggestion for quite a few years now. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 20:23:13 GMT
I'm sure most Stoke fans would feel that Pulis should have been given the chance to appeal against the penalty awarded against us in the Derby game.
Was it deliberate or accidental hand ball by Griff?
But who would decide?
If Brown had appealed against the penalty in the Hull game ... who would decide if Ric had dived or not?
|
|
leaves them for dead and within a couple of seconds of the incident at our end, Vince has legitimately put the ball in the back of the Scourers' net.
