So what are the arguments against video refereeing?

[Paulie Tandoori]

Why don't you read what I wrote. The ball is 'out of play' for between 15 and 20 minutes a half usually, but you think players aren't regathering their shape etc during that time. Or do they just stand still?

So you don't have a problem with the amount of theatricals that go on in what could be termed 'top class' games then? The breakages in play, the amount of time it takes to get a sub on (or more pertinently, the other player off), the rolling around with injuries that miraclously heal themselves when the injured party leaves the pitch, the dicking about at free kicks that often seems to mean that they take five minutes to organise and execute, the latest innovation of taking the ball into the corner to waste minutes at the end of a match, etc etc etc.

Btw, glad that you liked what i wrote so much you quoted it twice

 

[Paulaviki]

I'd like to see better standards of refereering brought in before they resort to video refereeing........e.g more linesman, sorry 'assistant referees' (one each side for each half of the pitch), more punishments for players who are abusive to refs (possibly a sin bin where they are sent off to cool down, or as someone on TV suggested at the weekend, enforced substitutions where the player has to be taken off but can be replaced), more responsiblity on clubs for their players behaviour etc - and its no good fining clubs/players, with so many of them earning ridiculous amounts, a few grand doesn't really affect them.

Footballers are divas and they think they can act any way they want without any action being taken, they need to be treated more like rugby players and the refs need to not take any shit from them.

If all that doesn't work then maybe video refereeing might be needed.

 

[stupid kid]

It will be too time consuming and will not stop arguments.

Well the second part of that will always be true until you can get rid of bias, people will say a player is on/offside even when they're quite clearly not

Was the 1966 goal over the line?

Of course it was! Otherwise England would've lost.

Also, how far down will it go? Goal line observers in semi-pro matches? Amateur matches?

I'd say Premiership level for goal line cameras, which raises a question about cup matches.

What if it's close/ can't be seen?

Then the decision on the field stands.

Here's the biggest one.

It's close. The ref waves play on and the ball goes up the other end and the other team scores a great goal, but now it's not a goal because the original goal is given.

Or, it's close, then the ball goes up the other end and a player is fouled. Henry wants to take it really quick because they've a 3 on 3 situation, but they can't because the game has to stop because we need the video ref to check.

On the first one, the original goal should stand IMO, but you play until the ref blows the whistle.

 

[stupid kid]

One might also mention the very successful system that the NFL uses, which is to allow coaches to challenge decisions made on the field (though that is easier in american football where there is a gap between every phase of play) but only two or three times a half, which has almost eradicated post-game bitching by head coaches, as well as ensuring correct decisions are being made.

On the NFL thing, I've watched for years, and although the coach's challenge is a godsend, the one and a half minute break is excruciating, even in a game that tends to have a forty second gap between plays. Not to mention that they don't always get it right, even with the video replays, although they reckon they get it right over 99% of the time.

I doubt Football would require such a long break mind you, and seeing how well it works, I can tell you I wholeheartedly support it. Although there are probably other ways of telling if the ball crossed the line, microchips embedded in the footballs and the goalposts perhaps? Or something of that ilk. Surely this is possible with modern technology?

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Well the second part of that will always be true until you can get rid of bias, people will say a player is on/offside even when they're quite clearly not

Of course it was! Otherwise England would've lost.

I'd say Premiership level for goal line cameras, which raises a question about cup matches.

Then the decision on the field stands.
On the first one, the original goal should stand IMO, but you play until the ref blows the whistle.

The second one? Because there's been a close decision at the other end Henry can't take the free kick?

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

It works well in NFL I'll concede, but that's because an hours play takes place in a game over 3 hours long. It's designed for breaks that game.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

I'm trying to say there is no real natural break in football unless a ball gets lost or something.

 

[ZAMB]

I'd like to see better standards of refereering brought in before they resort to video refereeing........e.g more linesman, sorry 'assistant referees' (one each side for each half of the pitch)

If they won't allow video prompting via a headset they should at least double, or even triple, the number of linesmen, because if the linesman is standing in the wrong place, he may not see what really happened, due to the angle that he's viewing the incident from. Play zips from end to end so quickly that it's too much to expect for linesmen to see every incident from the right angle.

 

[T & P]

The thing with breaks though, play is already stopped after someone has been fouled or a penalty has been given and there's a bunch of players mobbing the ref. So there wouldn't be that much additional time wasting by requesting a video replay.

In some cases, such as a controversial penalty or a goal from an apparent offside position, you could even save time if the ref requests video evidence straight away, rather than consulting with the linesman and arguing with players for one or two minutes.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

The thing with breaks though, play is already stopped after someone has been fouled or a penalty has been given and there's a bunch of players mobbing the ref. So there wouldn't be that much additional time wasting by requesting a video replay.

What about an appeal in the area that isn't given though? That could be just as important as one where the ref has blown up, but there's no natural break in play.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

The thing with breaks though, play is already stopped after someone has been fouled or a penalty has been given and there's a bunch of players mobbing the ref. So there wouldn't be that much additional time wasting by requesting a video replay.

In some cases, such as a controversial penalty or a goal from an apparent offside position, you could even save time if the ref requests video evidence straight away, rather than consulting with the linesman and arguing with players for one or two minutes.

But if you make this a rule - ie the pen gets ruled out and the next break in play is a free kick (for either side) you are allowing the defensive side to get their shape back because you're waiting for a ruling.

You know (as in cricket) this will mean that when refs are 'fairly sure' it's gone over the line they'll wait to get confirmation... when can they be sure that will happen - what if, as in several premiership games this season, the ball is suddenly in play for 5 minutes - do we rewind the watch. It's v different from nfl. We had a game (I can't remember the opposition but it involved Sheff Utd) where the ball was in play for a constant 19 minutes earlier this season. Are you going to ask the players to play an extra 20 minutes?

That's wrong imo - and will change football. TBH, most people who watch football for entertainment see this is true.

 

[tangerinedream]

Who fucking cares. It's a stupid argument that belongs on 606 or some equally shite programme. It's the kind of thing that soliciters who follow Utd from Essex ring up about and drone on and on about. "I think Alan, in this day and age etc...." FUCK OFF AND IMPLODE OR SOMETHING Why do the presenters always discuss the most assonyne of topics (yes I know it's spelt wrong) and then say stuff like, '606 - Having the debate that matters' - when they never do have any debates that matter.

Refs fuck up. Who cares. Always have done, always will it's part of life.

Now can somebody start an interesting thread about whether you have ever seen a player vomit on the pitch or similar.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Who fucking cares. It's a stupid argument that belongs on 606 or some equally shite programme. It's the kind of thing that soliciters who follow Utd from Essex ring up about and drone on and on about. "I think Alan, in this day and age etc...." FUCK OFF AND IMPLODE OR SOMETHING Why do the presenters always discuss the most assonyne of topics (yes I know it's spelt wrong) and then say stuff like, '606 - Having the debate that matters' - when they never do have any debates that matter.

Refs fuck up. Who cares. Always have done, always will it's part of life.

Now can somebody start an interesting thread about whether you have ever seen a player vomit on the pitch or similar.

Agree. It's a sky sports generation argument.

 

[tangerinedream]

Agree. It's a sky sports generation argument.

Iv'e got a good thread.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

 

[Jazzz]

But if you make this a rule - ie the pen gets ruled out and the next break in play is a free kick (for either side) you are allowing the defensive side to get their shape back because you're waiting for a ruling.

You know (as in cricket) this will mean that when refs are 'fairly sure' it's gone over the line they'll wait to get confirmation... when can they be sure that will happen - what if, as in several premiership games this season, the ball is suddenly in play for 5 minutes - do we rewind the watch. It's v different from nfl. We had a game (I can't remember the opposition but it involved Sheff Utd) where the ball was in play for a constant 19 minutes earlier this season. Are you going to ask the players to play an extra 20 minutes?

That's wrong imo - and will change football. TBH, most people who watch football for entertainment see this is true.

Don't see this a major problem. If the ref needs a ruling on an over-the-line decision, he can wait to see if the attacking team scores anyway, in the vast majority of cases there'll be a quick break in play otherwise he could blow the whistle once immediate attacking threats stop, get the ruling, and give a free kick to the side that was in possession when he blew if it wasn't a goal.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Don't see this a major problem. If the ref needs a ruling on an over-the-line decision, he can wait to see if the attacking team scores anyway, in the vast majority of cases there'll be a quick break in play otherwise he could blow the whistle once immediate attacking threats stop, get the ruling, and give a free kick to the side that was in possession when he blew if it wasn't a goal.

And you don't think this would ruin the game? Stopping it and giving a free kick so that he can check?

 

[T & P]

Who fucking cares. It's a stupid argument that belongs on 606 or some equally shite programme. It's the kind of thing that soliciters who follow Utd from Essex ring up about and drone on and on about. "I think Alan, in this day and age etc...." FUCK OFF AND IMPLODE OR SOMETHING Why do the presenters always discuss the most assonyne of topics (yes I know it's spelt wrong) and then say stuff like, '606 - Having the debate that matters' - when they never do have any debates that matter.

Refs fuck up. Who cares. Always have done, always will it's part of life.

Was cheating and diving as endemic in the past as it is today?

Perhaps in the modern day video evidence is needed. And it has fuck all to do with Sky Sports.

 

[bigbry]

The breakages in play, the amount of time it takes to get a sub on (or more pertinently, the other player off), the rolling around with injuries that miraclously heal themselves when the injured party leaves the pitch, the dicking about at free kicks that often seems to mean that they take five minutes to organise and execute, the latest innovation of taking the ball into the corner to waste minutes at the end of a match, etc etc etc.

I have never had a problem with players taking the ball into the corner of the pitch - the balls in play on part of the pitch, it's up to their opponents to get it back. If you don't like the ball going into corners campaign for 'rounded' corners. I think a lot of top flight players show a distinct lack of imagination - if one of them left the pitch so that he could attempt to play the ball from next to the corner flag I am willing to bet he would not be penaliosed for the technical offence of 'leaving the field of play without permission"

 

[christonabike]

The one thing that keeps football the glorious game is that the rules and equipment are the same for park football as they are for the world cup final.

Any deviasion would just not be cricket.

Up the Leeds

I agree with this wholeheartedly

It is bang on

 

[stavros]

Me too. Football and its rules are universal, and on the whole remain the same as they did back in the mid-19th century.

Footballers are divas

This must be a misspelling; surely you meant "er" rather than "a".

Oh and I agree 100% about the person who said to keep as much as possible away from Murdoch.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I do like the idea of round pitches like bigbry suggested, NO CORNERS!!!! (and that appears to fit with tangerinedreams opinions of what constitutes a suitable urban thread as well, result!!!)

 

[tangerinedream]

Was cheating and diving as endemic in the past as it is today?

Perhaps in the modern day video evidence is needed. And it has fuck all to do with Sky Sports.

I don't see cheating and diving every week though. Maybe I'm watching the wrong games or something.

 

[tangerinedream]

I do like the idea of round pitches like bigbry suggested, NO CORNERS!!!! (and that appears to fit with tangerinedreams opinions of what constitutes a suitable urban thread as well, result!!!)

Everybodies happy! (I feel bad for scapegoating T+P for starting a thread... sorry T+P )

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

The arguments against video reffing could be summed up as showing what a bunch of wusses these blokes being paid £100k A FUCKING WEEK think is acceptable in terms of showing up their lack of bollocks, enthusiasm, or general respect for the people who pay their wages.


Sorry, don't know where that one came from.

 

[Jazzz]

And you don't think this would ruin the game? Stopping it and giving a free kick so that he can check?

Not at all.

Did anyone think it was boring when play was stopped so a referee could consult with a Russian linesman?

 

[Silva]

Well, the problem with video refereeing is simple: it's still up to the referee to call a play. Last Superbowl had a lot of dubious calls, and a few years back the Stanley Cup was decided on a goal that apparently broke the crease rule (which helped to the same rule being scratched out after just a season).

Simply put, it's not failproof. And if it's not failproof, it can be used as a "proof " that the "referee was against us all the time". It might help a few cases, but the problems that REALLY close calls at the highest levels of competition can start are not worth it.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Not at all.

Did anyone think it was boring when play was stopped so a referee could consult with a Russian linesman?

You mean when the goal had been awarded and he was checking, and the linesman was flagging. No. Different to not knowing and 'just checking' when do you have the opportunity to?

In cricket, the ball is 'dead' as certain points. Same in NFL. It's never dead in football unless there is a booking (and even then that can be carried over for 5 or 10 minutes if necessary because there's a very good reason that the flow of the game is more important).

I can't believe you want to stop people taking quick free kicks/ corners/ goal kicks/ throw ins etc.

 

[Jazzz]

You mean when the goal had been awarded and he was checking, and the linesman was flagging. No. Different to not knowing and 'just checking' when do you have the opportunity to?

In cricket, the ball is 'dead' as certain points. Same in NFL. It's never dead in football unless there is a booking (and even then that can be carried over for 5 or 10 minutes if necessary because there's a very good reason that the flow of the game is more important).

But 1966 was effectively no different. A goal was hanging on the consulation of a linesman. With video replays a goal will hang on the consultation of a video. This is a moment of highest drama.

I can't believe you want to stop people taking quick free kicks/ corners/ goal kicks/ throw ins etc.

I think a sense of perspective is called for. There are going to be perhaps hundreds of free-kicks to every goal-line clarification.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

But 1966 was effectively no different. A goal was hanging on the consulation of a linesman. With video replays a goal will hang on the consultation of a video. This is a moment of highest drama.

I think a sense of perspective is called for. There are going to be perhaps hundreds of free-kicks to every goal-line clarification.

You're wrong about the circumstances anyway, but what's funny is that you're arguing to replace something you're effectively saying works well.

And sorry, but perspective might be called for - but that's not the point. One quick throw in not being taked affects the result of a match and I don't like it. I like that they can do that. You notice the frustration on players' faces (and the reaction of the fans) when the ref calls play back - we all hate it - why do you want more of that?