Football to trial TV referral system

[Larry_LCFC]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29109481

 

Football is to introduce a TV trial allowing coaches to challenge referees' decisions, Sepp Blater has announced.

The Fifa president, speaking at Manchester's Soccerex, also confirmed his intention to stand for re-election.

The 78-year-old wants coaches to be allowed at least one challenge against a decision per half.

"They have the right in the half, twice or once, to challenge a refereeing decision but only when the game is stopped," he said.

"Then, there must be a television monitor but by the television company and not by another referee.

"And then the referee and the coach, they will go then to look, and then the referee may change his mind, as it is the case in tennis, for instance."

The trial could happen as early as next year.

"It can only be done where there is television coverage of all the matches," added Blatter.

"Or in one Fifa competition, we can try in a youth competition, an Under-20, like next year when we are in New Zealand."

 

Not quite sure what to make of this. In theory its a good idea but surely it will take far too long and break the game up too much. I get the impression that the actual referee has to physically go and watch the tv screen which seems daft. Thoughts?

[GingerrrFox]

What a load of bollocks. Can the **** not just **** off now?

[Captain...]

They would have to specify exactly what could be challenged, something like offside is easy to check, but a foul isn't as it is largely down to interpretation.

 

What I don't understand is why they have to challenge it? Why can't a third ref be watching on a monitor and correct the ref, or just say he wants another look at it, like umpires often do in cricket. They aren't sure if it was a front foot no ball and they take a wicket, then they can check. Or the ref in Rugby, did he go into touch? Did he get the ball down? Not sure so lets check rather than guess.

 

Same with a goal where the ref thinks it could have been offside, linesman isn't sure, so they check. The risk is they will let it play out and then check and disallow the goal rather than make the call on the pitch when they are 80% certain it is offside. Likewise checking if the foul takes place in the penalty area or outside. If in doubt then check, most cases it would only take a second.

 

If you give the manager the option of referring you will get them speculating and time wasting.

 

Another difference is Rugby and cricket have clearly defined rules, any part of the player touches the touch line he is out of play, the bowler must have a part of his foot behind the line. In Football you have to judge if the whole of the ball is over the whole of the line and that is very difficult to do as the ball is spherical and it often appears over the line when it isn't. We would also need clarity on the rules on fouls and what defines where a foul took place, what is and isn't handball when should it be a booking, how do you judge a goal scoring opportunity? It is one thing leaving it to the referees opinion in a split second decision, but if they have countless video replays to look at, then they need to actually define it, it was simple when it was the last man, but now it is a goal scoring opportunity then how do you define it. What constitutes a covering defender, do you take into account the player who has been denied the opportunity, you take out Bale on the half way line with nobody between him and the goal, it is a goal scoring opportunity if you take out Andy Carroll in the same situation then it isn't. Diving is another example, football rules are littered with ambiguous rules we see pundits arguing over whether or not a decision is right when they have had hours to form an opinion, how can we expect a tv ref to get it right all the time when the rules leave so much for interpretation. Then what will happen when a TV ref makes the wrong decision. 

 

Giving people access to TV replays will help in some cases, but not all and will potentially waste a lot of time.

 

As usual we have had a one line comment on it and no detail so I don't expect anything soon, but they really need to think this through.

[RobHawk]

Im not apposed to the idea in principle. Things change, its as simple as that. I agree with Captain though, there are alot of unanswered questions with what has been said so far.

 

I'd love to see something well structured and well thought out trialed next year though at the U20's

[AyewJoking]

so if player x gets a yellow card, the next stoppage is when the decision can be appealed? what if player x gets a second yellow or a straight red before the next stoppage?

i could think up several scenarios where this rule would be stupid or unfair. 

[RobHawk]

so if player x gets a yellow card, the next stoppage is when the decision can be appealed? what if player x gets a second yellow or a straight red before the next stoppage?

i could think up several scenarios where this rule would be stupid or unfair. 

I think the stoppage would be when the ref blows his whistle to stop the game for a free kick for example. The ref has to stop the game in order to book or send off a player so that shouldnt be a problem.

[Manwell Pablo]

Coincidence this announcement is so close to Blatter standing again, of course.

[RobHawk]

Coincidence this announcement is so close to Blatter standing again, of course.

Hes unopposed! It makes no difference!

[ealingfox]

Isn't Blatter one of the people who were against goal-line tech because it 'would disrupt the game'?

 

Fwiw I hate the idea, pandering to goons like Mourinho.

[Corky]

Don't agree with it, goalline gives a definitive answer, refereeing decisions are mostly subjective so how could we determine fully whether they made the wrong original decision on a foul or an infringement?

[C-man]

Please will someone take one for the team and assassinate this cvnt before he kills football.

The day that this is in effect in an English league match is the day I give up. Complete disgrace.

[foxile5]

Sepp Blatter is a madman, it leaves me aghast at how an idiot like him can rise to prominence in any institution, let alone something as huge as FIFA.

[Sly]

Player A punches Player B off the ball.

Player B, goes down like he's been shot, blood everywhere. The referee doesn't see it so the game plays on.

The Manager of Player B goes crazy and wants to replay the decision with the referee, thus clarifying Player A should be sent off.

Whilst the game plays on, a Player A puts one in the onion sack, thus giving his team the lead.

The Manager of Player B at this point is going bonkers!!! Literally nuts! The referee walks over to find out what his beef is.

The referee reviews the footage and sees what occurred between Player A and Player B.

 

.....

 

Question, does the referee do now?

 

Award the goal, ignore the aggressive attack, send off the player?

[Larry_LCFC]

Television replays are needed in football as players are more "deceitful than ever", says former Premier League referee Graham Poll.

Fifa president Sepp Blatter is keen to bring in a system allowing managers to challenge a decision using video.

"It's a great idea," Poll told BBC Radio 5 live. "The game has speeded up.

"Players are more crafty and deceitful than they have ever been. Unfortunately, that is a fact of life, therefore referees do need help."

Blatter's idea would give managers at least one "call" per half to contest a referee's decision, but only when there was a stop in play.

The system, which is used in American football, could be trialled at the 2015 Fifa Under-20 World Cup in New Zealand.

Poll highlighted former France striker Thierry Henry's handball against the Republic of Ireland in a World Cup play-off in 2009 as the type of incident for which video challenges could be used.

Henry handled the ball before crossing for William Gallas to score an equaliser in the second leg as France went through 2-1 on aggregate.

"Everyone who watches a game on the television knows within seconds when a clear error has been made and the one guy that doesn't is the referee and that isn't fair," said Poll.

"I'm in favour of some technology. I would question whether we should give that power to the coaches or managers.

"They could use this tactically. You see tennis players sometimes who are looking for an extra 30-second breather will put an objection in knowing the ball has gone out.

"I think there should be other ways of reviewing situations."

Coaches in the NFL have the authority to challenge a referee's decision

Coaches in the NFL have the authority to challenge an official's decision

Poll took charge of more than 300 Premier League games and famously issued three yellow cards to the same player during a 2006 World Cup match.

He added: "To my mind, there are plenty of good ex-referees who would be happy to sit there and review situations and help the referee.

"They are completely independent and neutral, not at the whim of a television company providing the angle they choose.

"The ultimate decision is with the referee on the field."

Blatter will be standing for re-election next year as he bids for a fifth term in charge of world football's governing body and Poll hopes the idea of video challenges is not just aimed at winning votes.

"I just hope this is not a pre-election promise because it is well overdue to bring technology in to help referees," said Poll.

"It will help them and not undermine them."

 

[ozleicester]

Weve got a referee... end of!

[Jordan]

The Blatter Gang never ceases to amaze, do they not?

I disagree with using the u-17 World Championship as a laboratory. Yes, it's still youth football, but it's still their World Championship, and it's unfair to tinker with the rules in such an event.

Also, I'm not really sure what can be reviewed by such a system. Fouls? Calling fouls is a subjective matter and not always clear. In the NFL, penalties committed by players (whether called on the field or not) are not reviewable calls. We're left with offside and whether or not a ball goes out of play as other plays that can be challenged--is this even worth the trouble?

I would forget about video challenges and propose the following adjustments to officiating:

1) At major tournaments, use two referees: one on each side of midfield.

2) Regularly summon panels of officials and experts to determine ways to standardize foul calling.

3) Penalize teams and players for aggressively dissenting calls. Only allow captains to discuss calls with the refs, and only allow the captaincy to be switched with approval from the fourth official.

[Haydos]

Should be down to the referee to check a decision, not a manager appeal.

 

It can lead to the case of referees being afraid of making big decisions and using it too much like in Rugby.

[Captain...]

The Blatter Gang never ceases to amaze, do they not?

I disagree with using the u-17 World Championship as a laboratory. Yes, it's still youth football, but it's still their World Championship, and it's unfair to tinker with the rules in such an event.

Also, I'm not really sure what can be reviewed by such a system. Fouls? Calling fouls is a subjective matter and not always clear. In the NFL, penalties committed by players (whether called on the field or not) are not reviewable calls. We're left with offside and whether or not a ball goes out of play as other plays that can be challenged--is this even worth the trouble?

I would forget about video challenges and propose the following adjustments to officiating:

1) At major tournaments, use two referees: one on each side of midfield.

2) Regularly summon panels of officials and experts to determine ways to standardize foul calling.

3) Penalize teams and players for aggressively dissenting calls. Only allow captains to discuss calls with the refs, and only allow the captaincy to be switched with approval from the fourth official.

1) been tried before doesn't work.

2) strongly agree and is essential before anything like this can even begin to work

3) strongly agree also for diving and play acting

As for calls that can be reviewed by the ref, fouls committed in the area, offside, ball going out of play only review if it has a direct impact on a goal and the ref has doubt.

Fouls that can be challenged by manager should only be for absolute howlers such as, mistaken identity, hand ball where it clearly didn't hit the hand or a red card/penalty/dangerous free kick when there was no contact with the player and a clear dive.

[davieG]

FSF

 

 

Posted by Jon Keen  10th September 2014 No appeal in Blatter’s latest idea

TV replays could be used to challenge a ref's decision as soon as next year’s FIFA Under-20 World Cup, says Sepp Blatter. But is it the right move for football? Reading fan and FSF Secretary Jon Keen thinks not…

Although not completely unexpected, Blatter’s idea is terrible news, and I think rates in the top three of ludicrous ideas coming from FIFA’s President, slightly behind his 2004 idea of ensuring that women players wear “tighter shorts”.

Introducing such a system will be the start of a plummet down the slippery slope to a substantially different game. People might say that this is just a natural continuation of the process which started with the use of goal-line technology, but it’s really not, for there are a couple of massive differences between goal-line technology and TV replays. 

Firstly, there’s a world of difference between line decisions and the many other crucial differences for which we rely on referees. A ball has either crossed the line or it hasn’t – that’s a nice straightforward and factual decision, and for an objective decision like that that technology can be used to inform a referee. There’s nothing subjective about it, and the referee doesn’t need to use any skill or even think very much about the matter – it was a goal, or it wasn’t.

Decisions on fouls and handballs, though, are quite a different matter. This is where a referee really uses their skill, judgment and experience, because there are a whole host of subjective factors to take into account before making a decision– not least judging intent.

Did the ball hit the hand or the hand hit the ball? Was a tackle mistimed, negligent, a deliberate foul? These are the things to be considered by a referee, and these are precisely the things that can’t be decided by watching TV replays – no-one is as well placed as a referee, on the pitch an close to the action, to adjudicate on such matters.

How often have you seen panels of pundits arguing over replays and unable to reach agreement over what the decision should have been? I’m sure that even panels consisting of qualified and experienced referees won’t be able to reach a unanimous or correct decision just from looking at TV replays – they just don’t have the same viewpoint and context that the man in the middle does. So all we’d actually be ending up with from a replay panel would be a decision reached by more people, but not necessarily a correct one. 

The other big difference is the introduction of delays. Lest anyone think I'm a luddite who opposes anything new, I was always enthusiastically in favour of the introduction of goal-line technology, but with one important proviso – that any notification was virtually instantaneous. I was delighted that, on this at least, FIFA saw sense and made this a crucial prerequisite of the systems they looked at. 

One of the eternal delights of football is that every game is a continuously evolving narrative, where what happens now depends upon what’s gone on before. It’s not like cricket or tennis, where there is an individual passage of play with a ball bowled or a single rally, and then play has a natural break – the ball can be in play for many minutes at a time. Whichever approach you might adopt – stopping the game when an appeal is made or only allowing appeals when play is next stopped anyway – they both have major downsides.

If you allow the game to be stopped, I’m sure it won’t be long before a manager decides that the best time to lodge an appeal is when the opposition striker is bearing down on goal with only the keeper to beat – so instead of a valid appeal you’ve handed them a get out of jail free card.

Alternatively, if you wait until the game is stopped, that brings just as much potential madness, because you wind the game back in time. Let’s take a scenario – a team is defending, and their winger dives on an opposition striker on the edge of the area. The referee sees nothing wrong with the challenge, and play continues – possibly for many minutes.

Now, anything could happen before the ball next goes out of play – that winger might score a goal as memorable as Ryan Giggs’ famous FA Cup semi-final goal, he might commit a foul worthy of a red card, or he might suffer an injury and be unable to continue – literally anything could happen.

But a successful TV appeal against that initial tackle would wipe out whatever had happened in that time – the goal of the century might be suddenly deemed to have never happened, the winger might get a retrospective red card to go with his second, or he might reflect as he is carried off by stretcher that his injury was all for nothing as it happened in a part of the game which never officially took place.

Clearly a ludicrous situation, and that’s before you even wonder what happens about timekeeping - if it’s five minutes since the “offence” occurred, do you wind the clock back for that five minutes and play them again, or do you just simply pretend they never happened and wipe them off the slate? 

Whichever option you select, what you’ll have at the end of it is a wholly changed game to the one we know and love. Perhaps we should be asking just who is clamouring for these changes? The loudest voices are those of pundits, especially TV broadcasters.

For them, of course, this would be a godsend – a perfect opportunity to insert a few valuable adverts without having to wait through the whole inconvenient 45 minutes of each half. No wonder they’re such enthusiastic supporters of this idea, and would no doubt be more than happy to see more and more stoppages for appeals allowed within play.

I’m afraid that once you allow the game to be stopped, where does this process end? There’s no doubt in my mind that the broadcasters' nirvana would be something akin to NFL, so lucrative because of the officially permitted 20 ad-breaks per game, including “television timeouts”. That’s the ultimate destination once you start in the direction of travel allowing stoppages in the middle of the play.

A good rule of thumb is what is good for a TV broadcaster usually isn’t good for the game itself or for its supporters, and I’m sure that rule applies here. So let’s just leave the game as it is, please, and be happy with the long-established principle that although a referee might not always be right, there’s no bias and any errors are part of the game.

Changing this to a situation where referees are no longer right but can be overruled by a panel of “experts”, where the game can suddenly be stopped or wound back, would give us a game different in so many ways. A game I’m sure would have no appeal outside the world of TV advertising.

- See more at: http://www.fsf.org.uk/blog/view/no-appeal-in-blatters-latest-idea#sthash.PEeI7Ntm.dpuf