|
Johnson
8:47 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
Personally, I don't think it should be overly used.
To start with we could increase the use of retrospective video panels, who could review each game either live or post event and then advise the ref, cite players for diving or violent play REGARDLESS whether the ref dealt with it.
As part of that process work out where then they could easily interject real time in the game, if it's deemed necessary.
Football is too quick a game to stop start all the time.
Instead if one was looking at technology, explore other things like using a Hawkeye type tech for offside, or have a live screen showing the line of last man for a video linesman to use, bit like in a video game that sort of thing.
|
,
8:39 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
Feel free to express your opinion about the possibilities of using video technology, squeaky.
Go ahead and tell us your ideas?
|
Johnson
8:36 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
What have I told you before about talking about football, comma? It's not for you.
Confirmation of every goal? How odd.
|
,
8:31 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
What could be done, and right now in Premiership games, is to have another ref watching the game on screen with the power to overrule the on the field ref where goals are allowed or disallowed.
I would not like the flow of our game to be disrupted by teams having the right of on field appeal. And I would not like the ref on the field to seek confirmation over every goal decision.
|
dicksie3
8:29 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
That's what I'd like to avoid, 1985 son!...
For this to work properly without the game stopping and starting and being delayed too much; I'd hand all of the power to the refs to make contact for the video playback team to take a look at contentious decisions (shouldn't take too long to review again) and then get back to the ref with their opinion for him to then decide... The video playback shouldn't be viewable to the fans for obvious reasons (could cause aggro etc. (which I'd find entertaining!) and sway the ref's ultimate decision)...
Just my opinion though - plus I'd use computer systems for offside decisions as the technology for that already exists...
|
1985
8:19 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
It shouldn't be the ref's call I don't think Dicksie. Contentious decisions should be viewed by an official in the stands with a monitor instantly, and can radio the ref to hold the game until it has been reviewed.
|
dicksie3
8:13 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
It should be the ref's call for the video team to take a look and feedback as so as possible (no playback to the fans on screens)...
Most refs are so arrogant and sure of themselves that they'd never call for the video team to take a look but, of course, there will be incidents when they'd have no choice but to do so and not all refs are so up themselves to the extent that they think that they can completely control games without any assistance...
|
Baggins
8:06 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
Ron - I see what you are saying but how does the ref KNOW he's missed an obvious push or handball or penalty?
The only way to know is to review everything. Even then, replays are not always conclusive so we could be waiting for five minutes. Game restarts, cross comes over and player goes down and appeals for a penalty. Over to the video again for three minutes.
Only way I can see it working is having a bloke reviewing incidents for the ref as the game goes on. Even that could have flaws in it though so they would need to be very careful with regards to the implementation.
|
kylay
7:58 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
You don't know what you are asking for. In every sport (at least american), they halve always said initially, it is only in limited circumstances and won't disrupt the game. In every instance (NFL, College, NBA, NHL, and MLB) they have expanded the replay more and more almost every season. American football is by far the worst and has easily added 30 minutes to what is already an agonisingly slow game. It was once described as organized violence punctuated by committee meetings. I would now describe it as organised violence punctuated by committee meetings and an appeals process. There are too many issues with what's reviewable, what's not, what presumptions are given to an initial call, what's the standard of proof to overturn.
Ultimately what happens is you lose spontaneity and improvisation in the game. The refs will change the way they make calls (read: become more lazy) to err on the side of review (reviewable v. non-reviewable) for obvious reasons which will take more time out of the game. The players and coaches will want to review as much as possible too, again for obvious reasons. And the fans will bitch and moan as much as they always do for the call that wasn't given and cannot be reviewed. Ultimately, there will still be poor officiating and missed calls and unfairness; and the ONLY justification for this is the money at stake for winning and losing .
It will also open the door for adverts in the middle of a half when full debate is required between officials. I don't imagine it would be too far of a stretch when sponsors start wanting to engineer breaks to promote their products or simply just have corporate timeouts like every american sport as well.
Good luck trying to un-ring that bell.
|
angryprumphs
6:35 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
andyd12345 5:43 Fri Jan 8 - if the technology is there to SOLELY identify offside then that is the only thing it would do. As I have said you wouldnt even have to stop the game, the play on when offside is flagged and let the game continue whilst it is being reviewed.
Think we need to wait and see what they are actually bringing in the tech to do before we can say either way.
|
dicksie3
5:47 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
I'd advocate for computer systems to control offsides - the technology is already there...
Incidents to do with whether red cards should be given, and there is doubt in the ref's mind, should go to a video ref...
Same thing for penalty calls when refs are in doubt...
I'd stop at the issuing of yellow cards but perhaps they can be looked at after games and be reviewed thereafter - rescinding decisions on appeal... This should already be in-place...
|
i-Ron
5:44 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
Baggins - coaches aren't allowed. So that won't happen. It's just the ref's when they ask for it, or have made a blatant wrong decision, like mistaken identity which we've seen a few times over the seasons gone by here.
I saw some STATS about how they've been using it on the telly earlier, but didn't see them all. Would be interesting to see how many times a game on average they're used. I don't mind 20 decisions around 4 mins waiting time though. Not a problem.
I know rugby keeps coming up, but it's usually to see if the ball was over the line, or whatever. Football doesn't have that problem for goals. So that won't happen neither.
I'm guessing the trial in Holland is going so well
|
andyd12345
5:43 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
Awful, awful decision, and I see no way in which it would work.
I've got a couple of scenarios that could occur at any given time to prove my point;
1) "Ball is played through to a centre forward who scores, team argue it was offside so video umpire reviews. What happens if 10 seconds before the through ball was played, the attacking player just managed to keep the ball from going out for a throw in, but on review the ball DID actually go out. How far back in the 'play' do you go? Just the incident in question? The whole move? What if the move lasted 90 seconds? What if 15 seconds before the through ball was played there was a 50/50 challenge in the centre circle that some referees would have given a free kick and some wouldn't - what happens then? And if the answer is "all that would be reviewed is the incident in question" then its bollocks, as the point of video technology is to help get the right decision. UNWORKABLE
Scenario 2: FA Cup final, last minute, 0-0, attacker plays a through ball, striker scores, team argues its offside. If we are working on the assumption that only the incident in question can be reviewed, what if literally 2 seconds before the through ball was played the attacker clearly and intentionally handled the ball but it was missed by the on field ref. As the video umpire is only able to comment on the offside are we really saying that, despite knowing the referee has made a HUGE howler, the whole world knowing the goal should not stand and would cause enormous controversy, he HAS to award a goal because red tape indicates he can't overrule any decision other than the one in question? This then deems the use of video technology as a method of ensure the CORRECT decision is made completely flawed. If on the other hand we say the video referee has the right to overrule anything that is clearly wrong and therefore could have disallowed the goal on ground of handball, the we end up back at scenario 1 questioning how far back you go.
Scenario 3: West Ham are playing away at Villa, winning 1-0 and suddenly Rudy Gestede goes down in the area under a challenge from OGbonna. Video umpire is called in. What happens next? On field referee has called it a penalty. Unless OGbonna gets the ball (which he didn't), what jurisdiction does the video ref have to overrule? Penalties (and indeed fouls in general) are largely subjective, so a majority of the time a video replay wouldn't actually help, it may well hinder. Plus what should the video ref be doing about the tug on OGbonna's shirt by Gestede in the build up? Allow it on the basis the ref saw it? Call it foul on the basis the ref didn't see it properly? Madness, unworkable.
Introducing proper video referees would be a disaster for the game. Goal line technology is great because it is real time and automatic, and we would never have a situation where you are blaming goal line technology for missing an obvious foul in the build up to a goal, but that claim will always be made if we are using video refs as they are human beings and should be applying common sense.
Why don't we just go the whole hog and not bother having a referee on the pitch at all, and just adjudicate everything from control centre?
Sorry for the ramble.
|
Northern Sold
5:41 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
I'm up for it to a certain extent... Rugby has just about got it right as has American Football.. thing islike someone had already said... Cueto's try in the RWC final... ?? You STILL even now could not be sure it was or was not a try... nothing will ever be 100%... even with pens etc... plenty of experts call it one way or another... Goal line is working superb though... great invention
|
One McAvennieeeeee
5:40 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
I cannot believe you squeezed ANTIQUATED and ARBITRARY in that.
It's Friday FFS!
|
Dapablo
5:40 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
Offside could be dealt with instantly by a computer you don't need assistants for that anymore it's a factual call just like the goal line technology you just have to decide on the parameters.
Penalty calls and sending offs would need a majority decision including the video ref.
None of this would delay the length of the match at all.
|
Brucies_Star_Prize
5:39 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
i-Ron 5:23 Fri Jan 8
In terms of waiting time, or time taken out of the game, the biggest frustration for me personally is the antiquated time keeping system football employs.
Time wasting can start as early as the first minute, with teams taking as long as they can possible get away with taking any kind of set piece.
Then there's the ridiculously arbitrary amount of time added on at the end of each half.
It's hugely frustrating and so easily remedied by taking time keeping out of the referee's hands and making it ball in, ball out.
|
Baggins
5:37 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
Rivs - Haha! I was a leading light in the fair play world!
|
dicksie3
5:37 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
THE DRUIDS are dead-against this...
THE ROMANS are fully-behind it...
Tells you all you need to know... Them lot are stuck in the 1960s and still think that Preston North End are a big club and us beating them in the '64 FA Cup final was a miracle...
Us ROMANS are all for bettering the game; utilising modern technology and making it a fairer sport...
|
Baggins
5:36 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
Ron - But it would be more than ten times. Everytime someone claims a handball or a push in the box, everytime a player dives, all the nonsense at set pieces.
I have no issue with using video in principle but football is not a stop/start game like cricket, NFL and, to a lesser extent, rugby. If it is left to refs choices, they will end up reviewing everything they can because they'll be shit scared theyve missed something. And players will try to abuse the system and use it to waste time, slow play down, etc.
As for coaches having a challenge, the same thing applies. If a coach is able to immediately stop play by throwing a flag or something similar, they will abuse he shit out of it to gain any tactical advantage.
|
riosleftsock
5:35 Fri Jan 8
Re: Video Technology
|
Can't form an opinion on this until I see what P or Boltkunt think of it.
|
|
|
|
