Video technology

[RichMC24]

So. Apparently the answer to all of football's problems (according to Sky) is for the introduction of video technology to assist referees and get the decision correct.

Setting aside the argument about the flow of the game, I see that Sky tried several times to suggest that Vardy was offside for the goal last night and yet even after their in-house referee bullshitted their argument, the pundits didn't agree and still put the question to Rafa to try to incite a reaction.

My point is this; clearly Sky have a stake in the argument for video tech, but actually if you watch the analysis for any game (Benteke dive last week), video tech actually makes very little difference as even the slo-mo from every different angle doesn't clarify.

I for one am against video tech for decisions that aren't absolute I.e did the ball cross the line? I dont mind the referee making honest mistakes, it's part of the game. If Sky's idea of ignoring the rules because the presenters don't understand them is the future for the game, I suspect we are better off as we are.

Incidentally, In slo-mo Wes looked like he handballed, but in real time a penalty would have been a ludicrous decision.

[theessexfox]

The slow-mo replay is a good point to raise, in rugby for example the tackles often look much worse and later when they are put in slow-mo, which can mean a more severe punishment than is justified.

[GaelicFox]

Surely this is on the wrong place ?

General football and sport ?

[It'sblueupnorth]

I agree, in real time last night vardy looked level, half of his body was onside half wasn't, and you have to give advantage to the attacker, an official has to be 100% sure of the decision he makes so the linesman was spot on. In college today we were talking about the decisions of the FA cup clash, I thought it was a penalty for Payet, yet on of the other apprentices said no way on earth because there wasn't that much contact. And for the Benteke incident again I said it was because Delaney has slid in got nowhere near the ball and although it was only minimal contact it was there yet the other apprentice said no again because there wasn't enough contact. There's no way that the introduction of video tech could benefit IMO because most decisions could go either way, unless as you say it is a clear cut decision such as a ball crossing the line. Video tech would still cause all sorts of controversies and that's the reason why I don't think it should be brought in

[Brainy]

It would probably be like DRS in cricket where if there is doubt, the referee's original call will stand

[Richard]

My problem with the still of Vardy from last night is that the offside line isn't correct. As the goal line technology shows the perspective of the camera makes a huge difference

[Sionnach gorm]

They have technology now that can avoid the camera angle mistakes. Personally I'm for it. This technology would not be used for for minor fouls, but for direct goals (which have a pause anyway) and for penalty kicks inside the box punishing the bad actors and resolve an issue which if mistaken can change a game inexorably. Another would be goal line technology. It's time for it. We've had too many "hand of God" moments in football...just ask the English and Irish national teams.

[ozleicester]

want perfection, play a computer simulation, football is not just about players and their imperfections, but also about Refs and the errors they make.

 

Just play the game. What goes around, comes around.

[AyewJoking]

so who decides when the technology should be used?

 

for example vardy has a shot which bounces off the underside of the bar, goes in and bounces back out.

 

the ref and linesman give the goal but arsenal opposition crowd the ref like whingeing fannies and demand a video replay.

 

what i mean is if the ref alone decides when to use video tech can he can still be bullied into it by players/managers/fans.

 

what if he gives a video replay to one side but not to the other?

[st albans fox]

IMO, Rugby has become a worse game for the video technology

Referees now scared to make decisions and would rather leave it to the 'man in the van' - similarly with cricket. takes far to long to decide outcomes and can now trace back several phases to check that there wasn't an earlier offence. Really not keen on goals being ruled out for a slight push 30 seconds earlier 50 yards up the pitch.

Keep it to balls crossing lines and perhaps if scorers of goals are offside. (Not in build ups). Certainly not for penaltys. This last ten days has proved that this would be another potential disaster area for technology to become involved.

[Beliall]

Use the baseball rule. the manager can call a video review of one play only, if he is prooved wrong, thats it, he cant call again, if he is right, he gets to keep his chance, but he cant use it again till the 7th inning (think thats right) , for football, someething similar could be used

[Captain...]

It is not in Sky's or BBC's interest to have tv replays, that is half the post match analysis looking at controversial incidents over and over again.

 

I am repeating myself here from other threads, but there is  no way you can have a TV replay of a foul when the wording is so wooly.

 

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

 

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Read more at http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspx#7UryF8JFgUpUUt7z.99

 

 

The whole definition of a foul is in the referee's opinion, the definition is subjective so how you can review it to another person, especially somebody  watching on a TV screen the reason for giving the referee this level of creative license is that he is down on the pitch and he can get a feel for the game.

 

For fouls the laws need to be well defined for any hope of TV replays having any impact.

 

Take handball, the guidelines are just bullshit to give the ref any justification he needs for any decision, was the hand in an unnatural position (what the fvck is an unnatural position) was it moving towards the ball  (because you can't handle the ball whilst keeping your arm still) was it deliberate? (fvcked if I know I'm not a mind reader).

 

TV replays can work in a few cases.

 

Handball where it doesn't hit the hand (Morgan vs Liverpool anyone) in those cases a referee is just plain wrong and it would take 1 second to prove otherwise.

 

Off the ball incident that the ref doesn't see, such as a punch or elbow

 

Offside by more than a yard (I don't want every goal to be checked for offside) if you are 100% certain someone was offside the you can appeal it, but an unsuccessful appeal will result in disciplinary action.

 

Penalties given when it is outside the area, or free kick given when it should be a penalty, but again this must be blatant, if a foot is on the line at any point of the tackle then it stays with the ref. Any usage of video technology must be resolved in 10 seconds, if you can't be certain after 2 slow-mo replays then there is enough doubt you must stick with the ref's original call.

 

Even diving, apart from the most blatant, is difficult to make a call on, Benteke vs Palace, there was contact so you can't conclusively say it wasn't a penalty.

 

One option is to have a video ref that has a different view point and access to replays  and he can advise the ref, the ref can't talk to him, the players can't appeal, the TV ref will just be able to talk to the ref and give his opinion when he has seen it differently and then it is up to the ref to decide whether he wants to listen or not.

[TeamRocket]

Think its dumb we didnt need it back in the days and we dont need it now its football a game of luck win lose or draw. So much gizmos slow the game down and take the "omg that refs a w***** or he must be a so and so fan" but the only one il remotely agree to is tuch line technology but that only if we are gonna have summit