Video refs - not always the perfect answer

[Sunderland Surfer]

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.

TBF when you say everyone that includes a large proportion of idiots. It is about educating people about the rules too. The radio presenters (ex-pros) over here are very professional and unbiased compared to the shite I used to have to listen to in England. They tell it like it is regardless of which team is involved.

 

[pride of the north]

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

So when the ref gets it wrong but genuinely believes that Osman was brought down, no video referal and that's OK? You're assuming a ref would have the balls to admit he wasn't sure, and I'm not convinced all of them do.

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.

The 'so f***ing what' argument could also apply at the moment, though.

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.

By 'diving ban', do you mean following the non-award of a possible penalty a post-game review determines whether the player dived / cheated, or just fell over without trying to con a penna?

Or do you mean that following a contentious awarded penalty (such as Everton's) the panel assesses whether Osman dived? If they find that he did, does the goal get chalked off? Does the remaining 40 minutes have to replayed? If two points is the difference between stopping up and going down, or qualifying for the Europa League, and your panel has penalised a player for diving and 'costing' those two points, what are the potential legal implications of that?

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.

Absolutely agree with this one. The captain - on his own - is allowed to approach the referee and politely question a decision. An aggreived team-mate can ask his captain to do so as appropriate. Anyone else, as you rightly say, can fuck off. And if that means a couple of games are abandoned where some dumbfucks can't grasp the new rules and do a Man Utd hussle around the ref, tough. They'll learn soon enough.

 

[AC Mack]

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

There'll be carnage.

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.

So only when play would have been stopped anyway?

 

[Twisted]

So when the ref gets it wrong but genuinely believes that Osman was brought down, no video referal and that's OK? You're assuming a ref would have the balls to admit he wasn't sure, and I'm not convinced all of them do.

..


By 'diving ban', do you mean following the non-award of a possible penalty a post-game review determines whether the player dived / cheated, or just fell over without trying to con a penna?

i think in that case webb would have asked, you could tell he was unsure. umpires in cricket ask for a third umpire review, as do ice hockey officials, rugby etc etc, very few people are so proud they do not take help when it is there. if the wrong decision is still reached from time to time so be it, but it will help.

by diving ban i merely mean if a player is judged to have dived he should be given a ban, you cant change results after teh match [except in the case of france v ireland thierry henry handleball, id have disqualified france].

In the case of osman if i made the rules i would say, its too late to effect teh penalty but since he didnt dive, he fell over, no ban. I'd be tempted to give him a yellow for the appeal but he may have thought he was tripped or pushed.

Im not talking about solving everything, just the really really obvious ones. When someone has dived sometimes it is clear, sometimes you could argue all day, in those cases stick with the on field decision [as they do in cricket] but when it is clear as day, why not make the right decision when possible?

There'll be carnage.

how would it be carnage? it happens already in ice hockey, cricket, rugby and more ill bet

 

[AC Mack]

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.

Speaking to somebody else it seems perhaps your comments are the ill-informed ones, but I'm interested in hearing your views.

He says the implementation of the TMO has been disastrous. The rules on grounding have practically been re-written, some of the decisions are outrageous, and you can't call play back for clear infringements whilst others are being introduced. Sounds like a chaotic nightmare.

As I say, where do you draw the line? Once you have it for certain things, people will moan and want it for other things, and you're on a slippery slope.

how would it be carnage? it happens already in ice hockey, cricket, rugby and more ill bet

As above.

 

[pride of the north]

...

In the case of osman if i made the rules i would say, its too late to effect teh penalty but since he didnt dive, he fell over, no ban. I'd be tempted to give him a yellow for the appeal but he may have thought he was tripped or pushed.

Im not talking about solving everything, just the really really obvious ones. When someone has dived sometimes it is clear, sometimes you could argue all day, in those cases stick with the on field decision [as they do in cricket] but when it is clear as day, why not make the right decision when possible?

Enjoying the debate, but have to run - to the hockey, as luck would have it.

Briefly, on the Osman incident. You (or your panel) are saying it's too late to affect the penalty, but implying that the penalty shouldn't have been awarded (and thus Everton shouldn't have scored their goal, and thus SAFC should have won 1-0).

At the end of the season, what do you do if SAFC is in 18th place, one point behind Everton in 17th? Considering that this would cost about 40 million quid, and hinges on a decision which has been acknowledged as unfair to SAFC? Some day, some club is going to take that court (Tevez, Sheff U, WHU already sets a bit of a precedent for involving the courts in this). No court is going to reach a decision, and hear the inevitable appeal, in time for the following season to start. And that assumes you don't also have a situation where Everton scrape into Europe by a point, and it's Wigan who are clinging on in 17th, bringing two other clubs into the dispute.

Any post-match decision which implies a goal should not have been awarded is a potential legal minefield. As soon as one club decides it's worth exploring that legal avenue, you've got half of professional football tied up waiting for a judge to get his wig on.

Anyway, Dynamo awaits. With its video referee

 

[Twisted]

Enjoying the debate, but have to run - to the hockey, as luck would have it.

Briefly, on the Osman incident. You (or your panel) are saying it's too late to affect the penalty, but implying that the penalty shouldn't have been awarded (and thus Everton shouldn't have scored their goal, and thus SAFC should have won 1-0).

At the end of the season, what do you do if SAFC is in 18th place, one point behind Everton in 17th? Considering that this would cost about 40 million quid, and hinges on a decision which has been acknowledged as unfair to SAFC? Some day, some club is going to take that court (Tevez, Sheff U, WHU already sets a bit of a precedent for involving the courts in this). No court is going to reach a decision, and hear the inevitable appeal, in time for the following season to start. And that assumes you don't also have a situation where Everton scrape into Europe by a point, and it's Wigan who are clinging on in 17th, bringing two other clubs into the dispute.

Any post-match decision which implies a goal should not have been awarded is a potential legal minefield. As soon as one club decides it's worth exploring that legal avenue, you've got half of professional football tied up waiting for a judge to get his wig on.

Anyway, Dynamo awaits. With its video referee

aye its been interesting pal. to answer my thoughts in case you check later - teh osman penalty woudl have been sorted by teh video ref so it wouldnt have mattered - enforce all clubs to sign disclaimers if they want to continute in the football league that no leagal action will be taken on accoutn of poor decisions - have fun at teh hockey mate

 

[Giggity]

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.

There's nothing to stop the ref running over to the lino now to ask for clarification.


I think in other sports, it started as a single task jobbie, but people saw that it added great benefit, and then it was expanded.

Mind, if they go with a "beep" goalline system, then it can't really be extended anyway.

 

[Twisted]

There's nothing to stop the ref running over to the lino now to ask for clarification.


I think in other sports, it started as a single task jobbie, but people saw that it added great benefit, and then it was expanded.

Mind, if they go with a "beep" goalline system, then it can't really be extended anyway.

apart from for fouls/ violent play/ diving etc

 

[black-cat]

I'm torn over whether video refs are the answer, they'd be great for avoiding instances like Monday's penalty debacle, however they could prove to be way too time consuming, as in players from a team being penalised could hassle the ref into using the video ref every time a decision went against them, unless of course they only used it for penna's, but even then, it could cause prolonged stoppages. For goal line technology that hawk eye they use in tennis would be ideal.

 

[Giggity]

apart from for fouls/ violent play/ diving etc

Sorry, what I meant was.... if the choice they pick is a automatic system where the ball knows if its crossed the goal line, and beeps in the ref's ears - then that system is completely limited to that purpose and cannot be extended to cover fouls, offsides etc.


My preference is for the 4th official to be infront of a wall of screens, though.

 

[Twisted]

I'm torn over whether video refs are the answer, they'd be great for avoiding instances like Monday's penalty debacle, however they could prove to be way too time consuming, as in players from a team being penalised could hassle the ref into using the video ref every time a decision went against them, unless of course they only used it for penna's, but even then, it could cause prolonged stoppages. For goal line technology that hawk eye they use in tennis would be ideal.

just because one happened in our last game doesnt mean they happen every game. if the ref wants to use one fair enough, it would happen maybe once every couple of games, and if there is a stoppage anyway and the video ref has spotted a mistake he could radio teh ref and tell him but overall it would not affect many games at all IMO just the odd decision

Sorry, what I meant was.... if the choice they pick is a automatic system where the ball knows if its crossed the goal line, and beeps in the ref's ears - then that system is completely limited to that purpose and cannot be extended to cover fouls, offsides etc.


My preference is for the 4th official to be infront of a wall of screens, though.

i see. then i agree!

 

[black-cat]

just because one happened in our last game doesnt mean they happen every game. if the ref wants to use one fair enough, it would happen maybe once every couple of games, and if there is a stoppage anyway and the video ref has spotted a mistake he could radio teh ref and tell him but overall it would not affect many games at all IMO just the odd decision

Like I say, as long as they stick to only using it for pens, but then who's to say the modern day player wont adapt into his game some professional diving in the box technique? We know they do it already, but this could make it worse...

 

[Legend]

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).

Exactly this. It'd be the same time that the ref takes out to run across to talk to his assistant. The ref should just be a way of communicating a decision made by someone watching it where he can zoom in and watch replays. Its mental that this isnt the case IMHO. Some bloke in a room isnt going to be swayed by a players appeal, for example.

 

[Giggity]

Like I say, as long as they stick to only using it for pens, but then who's to say the modern day player wont adapt into his game some professional diving in the box technique? We know they do it already, but this could make it worse...

It'll never solve the issue of "well, there was contact, but did the attacker get fouled, or did he basically kick the defenders dangling leg so he could fall over it".

 

[Twisted]

Like I say, as long as they stick to only using it for pens, but then who's to say the modern day player wont adapt into his game some professional diving in the box technique? We know they do it already, but this could make it worse...

thats like saying it's the refs fault players dive so if we took out refs maybe theyd stop diving

 

[AC Mack]

There's nothing to stop the ref running over to the lino now to ask for clarification.


I think in other sports, it started as a single task jobbie, but people saw that it added great benefit, and then it was expanded.

Mind, if they go with a "beep" goalline system, then it can't really be extended anyway.

No, it works in certain situations when the play has already been stopped i.e. tennis and cricket. And even in the case of cricket, it isn't used by certain nations (India), creating even more controversy.

Exactly this. It'd be the same time that the ref takes out to run across to talk to his assistant. The ref should just be a way of communicating a decision made by someone watching it where he can zoom in and watch replays. Its mental that this isnt the case IMHO. Some bloke in a room isnt going to be swayed by a players appeal, for example.

What if there's a debatable decision and play is still ongoing?

Like I say, as long as they stick to only using it for pens, but then who's to say the modern day player wont adapt into his game some professional diving in the box technique? We know they do it already, but this could make it worse...

Who's to say they'll get the right decision? We see plenty of examples where people can't agree, days and weeks after the event, after seeing hundreds of replays.

Why just inside the box? What if a player is denied a goalscoring opportunity on the edge, does that get overlooked but a decision a cm further in gets looked at?

 

[redrobbo63]

True not perfect but. they will stop the deliberate cheating.. sometimes wrong decisions will still get made but that will be afar smaller percentage than is current.

 

[black-cat]

thats like saying it's the refs fault players dive so if we took out refs maybe theyd stop diving

It's not, just saying, it might entice them to seek the foul more