|
|
Post by tonyrv on Mar 3, 2008 11:04:00 GMT
They have got it in cricket and in rugby league, why not in football. And what does the fourth official do at the moment apart from stand there and argue with the two managers.
The top refs have gone full time but still make the same big mistakes, football is getting to fast for the officialls to keep up with the game.
Yesterdays decision by D`urso to send Griff off was absolutely disgusting and spoiled any chance of us getting back in the game, and could easily of been avoided if we`d had video.
There`s a fine line between technology improving the game and it having a negative impact, that doesn`t mean we just ignore it all, it means we should try it out and see what works.
Goal-line technology should improve the game as should video evidence into weather a foul was inside or outside the box.
What about if each team gets 2 or 3 occasions during a match where they can appeal to the video referee? then if they use them for silly decisions then thats there fault.
My view is for video technology to be used for important decisions like penalties, ball over the line, foul in the box or not and stupid decisions like yesterday where the 4th or 5th video ref could get quickly in touch with the ref and to tell him he`s made a fuck up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milkie on Mar 3, 2008 11:31:31 GMT
I like the idea of a teams Captain been able to make 2 video appeals per half of football; very similiar to how video tec is used in Tennis. Additionally, use of goal line technology should be mandatory and time keeping should be independant and visible to all in the stadium and the simple "the next time the ball goes dead the game is over" rule employed. 4 simple changes, all with readily available technology which would greatly increase the viewers perspective of the match.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Mar 3, 2008 11:48:10 GMT
As much as the D'Urso incident has riled me, I still beleive that the only place for technology is whether the ball has crossed the line or not.
Technology would damage the purity of the game - also, where in the league structure would technology at such a degree start and end ? The Championship ? League One or arent those games 'important enough' to warrant it ?
It may be a freudian slip Milkie when you state 'would greatly increase the viewers perspective of the match' but you refer to viewers rather than supporters !
|
|
|
|
Post by Milkie on Mar 3, 2008 12:00:05 GMT
Supporters are viewers, viewed from the stadium or otherwise, just thinking about those heart in mouth moments when the score board flashes up Goal/ No goal, Red Card/yellow card, penalty/No penalty!!
|
|
|
|
Post by PONTAFCE on Mar 3, 2008 12:09:55 GMT
I really dont think it should be put into the game.It will spoil it more than anything i understand that yes in some case's it would be good but imagine the starting and stopping.If we did use it and we were in the playoffs and the ball didnt cross the line but the ref give it would you maon then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Milkie on Mar 3, 2008 12:20:54 GMT
Its an interesting argument and I can see why people would be so set against the use of tec. However, the game has changed beyond recognition whether we like it or not, and when you can have 1 game (the championship play-off final) worth £60 million then the game has to move on. Throw in the ego maniac referees who seem to be out there to make a name for themselves, then some of the decisions have to be taken out, or at least confirmed, by video. I wouldn't advocate the carte blanche use of video, however, the opportunity to appeal against a couple of decisions a half by each Captain wouldn't particularly disrupt the flow; take Griffins sending off for example, rather than argue the toss, Griffin could have simply used one of his appeals, gone to video and over ruled the ref, the same in the second half for their off side goal. TV coverage is so good these days that replays are available almost instantaneously and from a dozen angles. If done sensibly it could vastly improve the game
|
|
|
|
Post by PONTAFCE on Mar 3, 2008 12:25:32 GMT
Would you honestly want to sit in the stand and wait for a decision like that to flash up? Personally i wouldnt example england final ball doesnt cross the line and ref gives it would you want a video?
|
|
|
|
Post by Milkie on Mar 3, 2008 12:30:25 GMT
Ponta, in that instance the german Captain would have already used his 2 opportunitys to appeal arguing a disputed throw in and a penalty appeal when the german forward obviously dived; with no appeals left the goal would stand as the Linesman had given it!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Godo on Mar 3, 2008 12:32:38 GMT
Yesterday's incidents were down to incompetence and stupidity not the sort of judgments that require technology. D'Urso was the only person in the ground who thought that as a red card and we called Agyemang offside for their third as soon as the ball was passed to him.
We have had 2 or 3 decent refs this season but 7 or 8 absolutely clueless stinkers. I think the standards of officials have to be improved significantly. They have to find a way to get people with some understanding of the game officiating before we worry about video technology.
Let's see how the appeals panel react to Griff's sending off to see how effective video review technology is!
|
|
|
|
Post by PONTAFCE on Mar 3, 2008 12:33:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 3, 2008 12:34:16 GMT
And what does the fourth official do at the moment apart from stand there and argue with the two managers. Agreed- plus hold up a board! However, do you remember at Burnley a few years ago when the 4th official decided it would be a good idea to get involved and ended up getting Tommy Mooney sent off?!! Video technology- it is a debate which will always keep going on- where do you draw the line? I don't know, I think the beauty of our sport is the unpredictable nature of it. I certainly don't think video's should be introduced for incidents like Griffin's tackle. |
|
|
|
Post by Milkie on Mar 3, 2008 12:35:19 GMT
Godo, as D'urso has just admitted he was wrong I would be gob-smacked if the red card was upheld. if it is upheld this only proves what many have suspected; that these pompous closed shop morons are out purely to make a name for themselves by any means necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godo on Mar 3, 2008 14:49:12 GMT
Milkie - if that's the case then D'Urso is more of man than I thought he was -still a shit ref though!
|
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Mar 3, 2008 15:52:11 GMT
I wouldn't be in favour of using video evidence for red cards. I'm prepared to accept that sometimes we get incompetent officials, but there won't normally be more than a couple of incidents during a season where a team will pick up an undeserved straight red.
What I would like to see is "did it cross the line?" technology (provided that it can give a reliable and instantaneous result), and the use of video replays for offside. My main reasons for wanting this are that humans seem unable to make an accurate judgement of these things in realtime, and because offside decisions cause at least a little controversy in practically every single match I see.
It needn't disrupt the game either; if the liner suspects that a player might be offside, he flags / buzzes, but the game continues and the fourth / fifth official gets to work on their instant replay. If the attacking side have lost the advantage in the time it takes to make a judgement, then no action is necessary. If a goal is scored or a corner / attacking free-kick won, then the video can be used to quickly ascertain whether or not it stands. If not, it's back for a free kick to the defending side.
|
|
