Video refs - not always the perfect answer

[pride of the north]

Been a bit of craic on here about video refs and the like. Couple of people pointed out that, regardless of the technology, you still have people (and all their fallibilities) in charge.

Here's a case in point, from Russia's Kontinental Hockey League (link in English)

You must be logged on to see external links

The rink in Minsk was a 15,000 sell-out that night, and I'd be surprised if there were more than a couple of Atlant fans involved. Do you think the goal would have been given if Atlant had scored it?

 

[Giggity]

If they fail 10% of the time, it'll still be 90% better than now.

 

[Twisted]

aye, but i bet that it solves more cock ups than it causes.

in the discussion a few days ago i gave teh example of the nhl using video refs and whilst yes its not a 100% perfect system its certainly a lot more likely to arrive at teh right result, and it hardly slows the game down at all, couple of minutes tops and its not even used every game, nor even every other game, i only see it a handful of times a season [i only watch maybe 10-20 games a season mind]

 

[Claxton]

Can you think of a similar example or situation that could happen in football??

 

[FunkyIguana]

I still don't know why they don't introduce video technology silently (having some bloke watching the match on a monitor inside the ground, linked up to the ref and linesmen).

 

[pride of the north]

aye, but i bet that it solves more cock ups than it causes.

in the discussion a few days ago i gave teh example of the nhl using video refs and whilst yes its not a 100% perfect system its certainly a lot more likely to arrive at teh right result, and it hardly slows the game down at all, couple of minutes tops and its not even used every game, nor even every other game, i only see it a handful of times a season [i only watch maybe 10-20 games a season mind]

Couple of minutes? I've known hockey matches over here held up for more than five minutes while they look at the videos. It's OK on TV, because you can see the same footage as the video ref. But in the arenas they won't show it, so you're left guessing (a bit like the officials!).

In the NHL, do they give a reason for the decision? I've seen a few incidents here where a goal has been disallowed and there's been no clear explanation (and not just because my Russian isn't good enough - nobody has said anything).

 

[AlpineExile]

Been a bit of craic on here about video refs and the like. Couple of people pointed out that, regardless of the technology, you still have people (and all their fallibilities) in charge.

Here's a case in point, from Russia's Kontinental Hockey League (link in English)

You must be logged on to see external links

The rink in Minsk was a 15,000 sell-out that night, and I'd be surprised if there were more than a couple of Atlant fans involved. Do you think the goal would have been given if Atlant had scored it?

But at least in this case the officials are facing disciplinary sanctions.

 

[Giggity]

By the way, can I just point out that, quite often, the ref does stop the game to walk over to his assistant(s) to talk about something that happened.

The idea that video refs can't be used because they would stop the game, and that can't ever happen, is baffling.

 

[pride of the north]

Can you think of a similar example or situation that could happen in football??

Could there be a goal line scramble where the ball may or may not have entirely crossed the line? I'd say yes there could.

Would video footage always clear that up? Depends on the exact position of cameras and players.

But at least in this case the officials are facing disciplinary sanctions.

Off to Siberia, the lot of 'em

 

[Twisted]

Couple of minutes? I've known hockey matches over here held up for more than five minutes while they look at the videos. It's OK on TV, because you can see the same footage as the video ref. But in the arenas they won't show it, so you're left guessing (a bit like the officials!).

In the NHL, do they give a reason for the decision? I've seen a few incidents here where a goal has been disallowed and there's been no clear explanation (and not just because my Russian isn't good enough - nobody has said anything).

but again youre using an example when they have been unusually long, usually the decision is made in a couple of minutes.

it is frustrating being left unsure why a decision is made but lets be fair - when youre at a football match you have no f***ing idea whether an offside decision was right or wrong, what a penalty has been given for, yes sometimes its obvious, but how many times have you shouted at a football match about a crap decision by the ref then having seen the highlights he's spot on?

as football fans were already used to just having to go along with a refs decision not knowing half the time if hes right or not, at least this way we could have a bit more confidence in them gettign it right. i'd rather wait an extra couple of minutes and get the right one...

Could there be a goal line scramble where the ball may or may not have entirely crossed the line? I'd say yes there could.Would video footage always clear that up? Depends on the exact position of cameras and players.

to be fair, that was a poor example by the lad, as in the same game there was a scramble by their keeper that we couldnt see. i remmebr at teh time thinking i bet it was a goal! to be fair it was teh other side of the post but it may have gone out for a corner to us, couldnt see and video replay would have helped there anarl, as it was blatantly another guess by the ref/linesman to just play on...

 

[Sunderland Surfer]

Used for every Rugby League game over here, which is the biggest sport on the East Coast.

Not perfect as obviously it is still about human interpretation; however, they wouldn't do without it and it doesn't slow games up for any length of time. Only used for key decisions and ref has to ask for it.

Ridiculous to think that we have a professional sport with so much money riding on results yet we rely on 1 bloke to make crucial split-second decisions, I feel sorry for the refs.

 

[Twisted]

Used for every Rugby League game over here, which is the biggest sport on the East Coast.

Not perfect as obviously it is still about human interpretation; however, they wouldn't do without it and it doesn't slow games up for any length of time. Only used for key decisions and ref has to ask for it.

Ridiculous to think that we have a professional sport with so much money riding on results yet we rely on 1 bloke to make crucial split-second decisions, I feel sorry for the refs.

must be terrible, doing your best and just getting shat on and booed for it, no help and no protection whatso ever

 

[AC Mack]

By the way, can I just point out that, quite often, the ref does stop the game to walk over to his assistant(s) to talk about something that happened.

The idea that video refs can't be used because they would stop the game, and that can't ever happen, is baffling.

Where do you draw the line though? Once technology is begun being used for certain types of scenarios, it'll be used for every single decision as people begin to moan more and more. And they will, absolutely guaranteed.

It baffles me that people don't see this.

 

[Twisted]

Where do you draw the line though? Once technology is begun being used for certain types of scenarios, it'll be used for every single decision as people begin to moan more and more. And they will, absolutely guaranteed.

It baffles me that people don't see this.

not if it's only used when the ref asks for it.

aye therre will still be bad calls but so f***ing what, get on with it and at elast some fuck ups will be ironed out.

video replays for teh split second decisions the ref is unsure about, post game video review to hand out diving bans/violent play/yellow & red card appeals.

sorted. oh and wipe out dissent by booking any player who comes near the ref apart from captain and red card anyone who swears/ shouts at ref ref.

f***ing easy man

 

[Sunderland Surfer]

must be terrible, doing your best and just getting shat on and booed for it, no help and no protection whatso ever

The way it is run over here the replays are shown on the stadium screen and everyone gets to know why a decision has been made. Takes a lot of pressure of the ref at those crucial moments as he knows he can refer to the video ref. This allows them to look after the rest of the game and when a decision is made it is put to bed almost instantly so it doesn't affect them for the rest of the game. How many times have we seen a ref drop a bollock then continue dropping more and more as he is flustered and uncertain about the decision he made and the flak he is getting.

 

[Twisted]

The way it is run over here the replays are shown on the stadium screen and everyone gets to know why a decision has been made. Takes a lot of pressure of the ref at those crucial moments as he knows he can refer to the video ref. This allows them to look after the rest of the game and when a decision is made it is put to bed almost instantly so it doesn't affect them for the rest of the game. How many times have we seen a ref drop a bollock then continue dropping more and more as he is flustered and uncertain about the decision he made and the flak he is getting.

exactly.

plus by allowing dissent from teh players we have build asystem where the ref gets no respect from any corner of the ground. how are the crowd suppose to have faith in the ref when you can see the players giving him an earful anarl

 

[Sunderland Surfer]

Where do you draw the line though? Once technology is begun being used for certain types of scenarios, it'll be used for every single decision as people begin to moan more and more. And they will, absolutely guaranteed.

It baffles me that people don't see this.

This is an ill informed comment. In Rugby League over here it can only be used in certain circumstances and is at the request of the on field ref. I am no RL rule junkie but it is something like grounding of the ball, offside and can't think of much else. Not allowed for general play such as a forward pass etc as that is the refs job to sort out. They do have two refs like.

 

[pride of the north]

but again youre using an example when they have been unusually long, usually the decision is made in a couple of minutes.

Maybe they reach decisions faster in the NHL (with live games starting at 4am over here I'm not in a position to find out any time soon!), but seriously, 5 minutes isn't that unusual for Russian games. The worst I can remember was a goal scored right at the end of the second period, and they wanted to check whether it was 19:59 and a goal, or 20:00 and no goal. I don't know if the teams found out sooner - you'd like to think so, since when it was given it tied the game - but there was no confirmation to the fans until the start of the third. That, admittedly, is an extreme and somewhat freakish situation. Saying that, video decisions aren't all that common over here - certainly not every game, in my experience.

as football fans were already used to just having to go along with a refs decision not knowing half the time if hes right or not, at least this way we could have a bit more confidence in them gettign it right. i'd rather wait an extra couple of minutes and get the right one...

But how many times have you watched video footage of an incident and everyone has used it to 'prove' that they should have got the decision they wanted? We've had people on here saying that the beachball goal deflected off the defender's ankle and not the beachball, refering to the video footage. We've had people refer to the Larsson penna at Wolves and footage which 'proves' that it was or wasn't. I'm sure you could go to the Everton board and get people who can 'prove' that Osman was bundled to the floor and brutally assaulted by the entire Sunderland squad. In the end, we tend to agree with (or disagree less forcefully) with the decisions that go how we want them to. And that ain't gonna change, regardless of the decision-making process.

 

[Sunderland Surfer]

not if it's only used when the ref asks for it.

aye therre will still be bad calls but so f***ing what, get on with it and at elast some fuck ups will be ironed out.

video replays for teh split second decisions the ref is unsure about, post game video review to hand out diving bans/violent play/yellow & red card appeals.

sorted. oh and wipe out dissent by booking any player who comes near the ref apart from captain and red card anyone who swears/ shouts at ref ref.

f***ing easy man

Works for Rugby League so why bot the greatest game? Match review committees sit over here and dish out bans fro things the ref has missed as well as the things he has put 'on-report' which means he suspects it was a dodgy tackle etc but didn't have a clear enough view to make a send off decision.

 

[Twisted]

Maybe they reach decisions faster in the NHL (with live games starting at 4am over here I'm not in a position to find out any time soon!), but seriously, 5 minutes isn't that unusual for Russian games. The worst I can remember was a goal scored right at the end of the second period, and they wanted to check whether it was 19:59 and a goal, or 20:00 and no goal. I don't know if the teams found out sooner - you'd like to think so, since when it was given it tied the game - but there was no confirmation to the fans until the start of the third. That, admittedly, is an extreme and somewhat freakish situation. Saying that, video decisions aren't all that common over here - certainly not every game, in my experience.



But how many times have you watched video footage of an incident and everyone has used it to 'prove' that they should have got the decision they wanted? We've had people on here saying that the beachball goal deflected off the defender's ankle and not the beachball, refering to the video footage. We've had people refer to the Larsson penna at Wolves and footage which 'proves' that it was or wasn't. I'm sure you could go to the Everton board and get people who can 'prove' that Osman was bundled to the floor and brutally assaulted by the entire Sunderland squad. In the end, we tend to agree with (or disagree less forcefully) with the decisions that go how we want them to. And that ain't gonna change, regardless of the decision-making process.

1st para yeah thats a piss take, but like you say very unusual. bottom line - does video ref in russian hockey make the correct decision more likely to be given than the incorrect one?

2nd para i see what youre saying but its kind of irrelevant - youre saying that a biast person can see what tehy want to see within a video replay - well of course, but you'd hope the video ref would not be biast. yes sometimes you can watch a replay 100 times and still nto be 100% sure. but you can also watch a replay and say yes or no straight away and resolve an issue.

take the osman penalty, take the lampard goal a the world cup, obvious decisions that could have been solved. yes sometimes the wrong decision will still be made, but far less often.