|
Post by stokelad84 on Jan 1, 2009 20:24:57 GMT
Have a look at managers when they are standing in there technical areas (including TP) as soon as a decision goes against there team, there arms go up and they contest it. it will be the same if video technlogy is introduced, the big managers will end up demanding it gets used for everything
|
|
|
Post by paul2106 on Jan 1, 2009 20:28:27 GMT
Why should we suddenly use video technology because it didn't affect the game 10 years Why shouldn't we use a ball with laces in it or have under soil heating or flood lights, infact lets go back to when you couln't use substitues, because it didn't effect the game 100 years ago
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 20:28:55 GMT
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, then surely you are suggesting that the linesman will no longer flag for off sides:
If the ref has blown because the liner has flagged for off side, the defence stops playing and the forward bangs it into the net, but the video replay shows the striker WAS on side etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by paul2106 on Jan 1, 2009 20:32:01 GMT
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, then surely you are suggesting that the linesman will no longer flag for off sides: If the ref has blown because the liner has flagged for off side, the defence stops playing and the forward bangs it into the net, but the video replay shows the striker WAS on side etc. etc. etc. That is the problem. If play stopped by the linesman resulted in not getting a chance of a goal. However it should only be used as i stated earlier. And im not saying the linesman doesnt do off sides.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2009 20:32:16 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? I can see your point ultimatley the decision still has to lie with the first official. If he decides it is or is not the decision then it stands. I certainly would not agree with a panel deciding etc.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Jan 1, 2009 20:32:37 GMT
It has to be black or white decisions only, i.e. has the whole of the ball crossed the goal line or not... I agree that if introduced it should be just for these types of incident, not for penalties, off-sides etc.
Taking penalty decisions as an example - look at the pen that Ric won against Hull - i've seen that a dozen times from 3 different angles and I still can't decide 100% if there was contact or not. So you're still left to individual interpretation, in the same way that you are in a split-second decision in live play. Only allowing replays for goal line queries takes out the objectionality because if the cameras are set up correctly it would be an easy decision to say whether or not the whole of the ball crossed the whole of the line.
There are probably only 4 or 5 of these goal-line incidents in an entire season (I would guess??) - we certainly don't see one of these every week on Sky. So the question is, would it really be worth the investment and technology to introduce something that would rarely make a difference?
Leave it as it is I say, it works fine for me at present. It gives us all something to talk about for a start!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 20:37:52 GMT
With the greatest of respect Paul that sounds like a contradiction to me.
If you are saying that the linesman definately DOES DO offsides, then how can you the call for the use of video evidence later to appeal the decision, if the defence has stopped playing as a direct result of his judgement which has allowed the forward to score the goal uncontested?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2009 20:40:59 GMT
With the greatest of respect Paul that sounds like a contradiction to me. If you are saying that the linesman definately DOES DO offsides, then how can you the call for the use of video evidence later to appeal the decision, if the defence has stopped playing as a direct result of his judgement which has allowed the forward to score the goal uncontested? Personally I think they should actually decide what is or isn't an offside before we can call VE for it
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2009 20:43:07 GMT
;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by paul2106 on Jan 2, 2009 0:23:39 GMT
With the greatest of respect Paul that sounds like a contradiction to me. If you are saying that the linesman definately DOES DO offsides, then how can you the call for the use of video evidence later to appeal the decision, if the defence has stopped playing as a direct result of his judgement which has allowed the forward to score the goal uncontested? My point is you can only contest an off side if they scored from that play. Which in the most recent memory would be WHU's winning goal on sunday! It probably would not work for the attacking teams, as once the play has stopped you can't re-enact the match situation
|
|
|
Post by Soi Cowboy on Jan 2, 2009 0:33:19 GMT
When a goal is scored and contested for offside THEN it can surely be used. No reason why say the 4th official at say West Ham could have looked- if a goal is scored and the linesman has flagged then again it can be used. The 'Gerrard' goal v us springs to mind.
As with the ball crossing the line- the technology to sort this has apparently been tested by FIFA with a new ball that has a sensor in and sends a signal if the whole of the ball is over the goal line. Was talk of it being used in the last World Cup but not at an advanced enough stage at the time- apparently works similar to the magic eye at Wimbledon. With the light footballs and the speed they fly it could be time maybe to consider testing it in say the Prem-what harm could it do? No arguments for one
TV replays would be ideal obviously for off the ball incidents that the ref doesn't see and the 4th official can. The technology is available and officials wired up so would make little difference to the game as it is now. The Hull incident would not be being discussed now if such replays were available as is clear to see was not a penalty. Refs talk to linesmen regularly during games so the 4th official no different.
The only time should be used for penalty decisions is maybe to judge if inside the box or not- don't agree with replays to judge the ref's actual decision on the call
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 2, 2009 0:38:18 GMT
Exactly fella!
And surely it can't be fair that the video evidence could be used for the benefit of the team defending but not for the team attacking.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 2, 2009 0:42:28 GMT
See response above.
Yes agree with this, makes perfect sense if it can be made to work.
Again agree with this, for incidents that don't affect the passage of play.
|
|