goose2010 Posted 12 November 2012 Share Posted 12 November 2012 I agree but it would only solve clear cut decisions, such as if it was over the line or not, but there is so much subjectivity when it comes to fouls and handballs, the penalty on Saturday some people say it was a foul, some people say it clearly wasn't, pundits debate it in the studio and fans do in the pub, if we are going to have video refs and referral decisions we need to clarify the rules and apply them consistently before we can have another set of eyes passing judgement. I agree with that, but at what point would it be too long, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes? wouldn't take that long i don't think to show a reply to the ref and 4th official, on something like a ipad/laptop. Should only be for goals, penalty decisions and red cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 12 November 2012 Share Posted 12 November 2012 I agree but it would only solve clear cut decisions, such as if it was over the line or not, but there is so much subjectivity when it comes to fouls and handballs, the penalty on Saturday some people say it was a foul, some people say it clearly wasn't, pundits debate it in the studio and fans do in the pub, if we are going to have video refs and referral decisions we need to clarify the rules and apply them consistently before we can have another set of eyes passing judgement. I agree with that, but at what point would it be too long, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes? We all ready waste many, many minutes setting up free kicks, this time is never accounted for which I feel cheated on. If managers were limited to a number of reviews, say 3 each taking a minute to review it would only add 6 minutes at most. But you're correct there would need to be some clarification of the rules and limits to what you could call a review for, probably goals, penalties, red cards. I personally don't feel you should be dismissed for 2 silly yellows I pay to see 11 v 11, either that or introduce an additional card between yellow and red, mind you that would probably cause more confusion than we have now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 12 November 2012 Share Posted 12 November 2012 wouldn't take that long i don't think to show a reply to the ref and 4th official, on something like a ipad/laptop. Should only be for goals, penalty decisions and red cards. But they would have to be looking for certain things which they can answer yes or now, in the Whitbread case, the ref would have to ask "Did he make contact with the ball first?" Yes or no. If Yes no penalty, if no then penalty... but in the current laws making contact with the ball first does not necessarily mean it is not a penalty, for example dangerous tackles. Then these decisions are debated at length throughout the country and are impossible to get a consensus on. Same with handball, did it strike the hand? Yes or No? Was the hand in an unnatural position? Was it moving towards the ball? Was it deliberate? These things are so subjective there is no surprise we get so many inconsistent decisions. We need clear simple to understand definitions, and the flexibility in punishing fouls that reflect the severity of the foul. You cynically hack down someone on the edge of the area to prevent a certain goal, free kick and red card (high probability of scoring from attack, low probability of scoring from free kick), you clumsily bundle into someone going nowhere on the edge of the box, penalty (low probability of scoring from attack, high probability of scoring from penalty). Even things like handball on the line, 100% probability of scoring without the hand ball, 70-80% of scoring from a penalty, it makes no sense. I would fully support penalty goals, penalties awarded for fouls outside the box when through on goal and indirect free kicks awarded for minor infringements inside the box that don't prevent a goal scoring opportunity. We all ready waste many, many minutes setting up free kicks, this time is never accounted for which I feel cheated on. If managers were limited to a number of reviews, say 3 each taking a minute to review it would only add 6 minutes at most. But you're correct there would need to be some clarification of the rules and limits to what you could call a review for, probably goals, penalties, red cards. I personally don't feel you should be dismissed for 2 silly yellows I pay to see 11 v 11, either that or introduce an additional card between yellow and red, mind you that would probably cause more confusion than we have now Sinbins, I would love to see sin bins for yellow cards, and second yellow just means second sin bin, serious dangerous/violent play is a red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 12 November 2012 Share Posted 12 November 2012 I agree with that, but at what point would it be too long, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes? Reviews in the NFL are hardly ever longer than a few minutes at an absolute maximum. Provided they stop the game clock whilst a review is happening in the same way I can't see a massive issue with timings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 12 November 2012 Share Posted 12 November 2012 Reviews in the NFL are hardly ever longer than a few minutes at an absolute maximum. Provided they stop the game clock whilst a review is happening in the same way I can't see a massive issue with timings. But NFL is a stop start sport, so having a few minutes of standing around waiting is not a big problem, can you imagine the players just standing around in the rain for 2 minutes waiting for a decision, in sports like Cricket and Tennis, it is not an issue as they don't play in the rain they have lots of stoppages and are used to periods of inactivity for a few minutes. It can only work if decisions are made within seconds, and to do that we need simple rules and simple definitions, in the case of handball, the rule has to be did it hit the hand or not. If so it is a foul, in the case of tackling it is not so easy, did he touch the ball before the man? But then wild reckless over the top challenges can still get the slightest touch on the ball before breaking someone's leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 12 November 2012 Share Posted 12 November 2012 But they get paid a lot just to stand there and do nothing. So when FIFA asked them - following the trial - if it was a good idea the referees backed up their colleagues and they all said yes, so they implemented them and now they do nothing but get paid an awful lot for it. I said that we don't need extra officials behind the goals. I agree with what you've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 12 November 2012 Share Posted 12 November 2012 But NFL is a stop start sport, so having a few minutes of standing around waiting is not a big problem, can you imagine the players just standing around in the rain for 2 minutes waiting for a decision, in sports like Cricket and Tennis, it is not an issue as they don't play in the rain they have lots of stoppages and are used to periods of inactivity for a few minutes. It can only work if decisions are made within seconds, and to do that we need simple rules and simple definitions, in the case of handball, the rule has to be did it hit the hand or not. If so it is a foul, in the case of tackling it is not so easy, did he touch the ball before the man? But then wild reckless over the top challenges can still get the slightest touch on the ball before breaking someone's leg. I like how you don't mention Rugby - the sport that disproves your stop-start sports theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 12 November 2012 Share Posted 12 November 2012 I like how you don't mention Rugby - the sport that disproves your stop-start sports theory. To be honest I just forgot about it, easily done. In Rugby do they only check the video if it is for a try? Or do they do it for other incidents such as high tackles or offsides? I've only ever seen it used for a try, but then I don't watch much rugby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 12 November 2012 Share Posted 12 November 2012 To be honest I just forgot about it, easily done. In Rugby do they only check the video if it is for a try? Or do they do it for other incidents such as high tackles or offsides? I've only ever seen it used for a try, but then I don't watch much rugby. Honestly haven't got a clue either even when I do watch rugby I'm only paying half attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dedlock Posted 13 November 2012 Share Posted 13 November 2012 I don't know how many decisions are covered in rugby but on field ref can ask video ref,e.g."can I award a try?" Why couldn't on field football ref have similar help? A video ref can answer whether the ball has crossed the line for a goal. He could also assist in situations like last Saturday if on field ref asks"can I award a penalty?" or "is there a reason I cannot award?" The would be a short delay only and any time lost could be added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.