Use of video-technology in football

[Jumbuck]

As I said in another thread, the best thing to be hoped for as a result of Wednesday's France - ROI match is that the introduction of video-technology for controversial decisions becomes high priority.

Firstly it has been used before (even though they don't officially admit it) and that was in the World Cup final when Zidane was sent off.

As for disrupting the flow of the game:

- players surround the referee at present, which 9 times out of 10 results in him stopping play to book some of the them.

- with an incident like that on Wednesday, it's either a goal or a player has cheated and so that player should be booked/sent off, both outcomes result in a stoppage of play.

- the referee already stops the game when a player has been lying injured (real or faking it) for several seconds, no matter what advantage one of the sides might have at that moment.

As for it not being available at a lower level of football, the top levels of other sports enjoy privileges that their lower levels don't - photo-finish cameras in Olympic and national athletics but not at your local meeting, lots of people looking for your lost ball at the Open golf (bet there's lots of volunteers to do that at your local golf club), Hawkeye at Wimbledon, and so on.

It should only take a few seconds for a fourth official to view replays so I don't see any practical reasons why not. Bring it on!

In addition time-keeping should be done by the fourth official too; this is done successfully in both codes of rugby and there's far more stoppages there than in football. Plus it lets everyone know exactly how much time is left.

[Jumbuck]

I forgot to make it a question so... am I right or am I right?

[brionon]

How ? If the Ref gives a Penalty OK but are you gonna stop the game every minute ?

[jackthehat]

Surely, it would only be needed for 'contentious' incidents ?
That player, there, rolling round on the pitch like he's been winged by a sniper.........did the tackling player really take a lump out of him, or is it 'simulation '?

Was the goal-scorer, or his assisting team-mate off-side before the goal was scored ?

Did the whole of the ball go over the whole of the line ?

Were (unofficial) hands used in the scoring or saving of a goal ?

[Jumbuck]

The game doesn't need to be stopped every second; as I said before the game currently gets stopped several seconds after an injury has occurred without any regard for whether the team in possession has advanced to an advantageous position.

Incidentally has the 2 officials by the goal line in the Europa league been a success?

[Panic Button]

This is one of those incidents that could have been quickly sorted by a video replay.

However there are many incidents that are played over and over on TV in slow motion, and people still disagree.

I suspect video replays for referees will just lead to other problems.

Just bring it in for deciding if the ball crosses the line.

[foxyferret]

How about an American Football system? If the manager is convinced that it is not a touch down, he throws down a flag (a challenge) and the ref goes off to the side to look at the action replay from all angles. You could apply this to hand ball, did it cross the line etc.The manager is only allowed to challenge a set number of times (I think it is two in a half, could be wrong).All other decisions are made by the ref , once the manager has used his challenges has to like it or lump it. Ref then decides if the ruling on the field stands or he can overturn it. Game resumes as normal. It does not hold up the game for a silly amount of time and in my opinion does not disrupt the flow of the game. Sometimes games are not "flowing" anyway. If that is the argument then you could say half time interrupts the flow of the game.

[mariner2]

It is totally ludicrous that any bloke down the pub can see it was blatant handball within 10 seconds, yet the referee is denied this. Even the woman in the corner with not the slightest interest in footballl can look and see it wasn't a goal, yet the referee can't.
The solution is pretty simple I think - you have a TEAM of four officials, a referee, two linesmen as normal, and then the fourth official who watches the same TV pictures that the rest of the world sees, and is miked up to the referee on the field and can tell him anything he misses.
If FIFA emphasize the TEAM aspect of this, and give points (as they are so fond of doing) to the TEAM of officials for each game it will take out any feeling of the onfield ref's authority being overruled.
The team of officials in Paris would have scored -50 points for one of the worst mistakes ever seen, yet if the fourth official had corrected the onfield ref, they would have scored very highly as they were very good apart from that (especially not falling for that dive by Anelka)
The emphasis would then be on getting decisions RIGHT as a team and not worrying about the ego of the onfield referee.The teams of officials with the best scores then naturally get the best games, so there would be a vested interest in the TEAM making the right decisions by whatever means. It would have the added avantage of also stopping herds of players pursuing the onfield referee as he can just say the decision was made by the video ref.

[Gromit]

The FIFA position, which I do not agree with, is that the rules should be the same for everyone. Not everyone have TV pictures available, so it cannot be applied universally.

Which is rubbish. High profile matches seen by millions around the world, where TV pictures clearly show something the referee missed, bring the game into disrepute.

I watch Portsmouth Man U on saturday. Man Utd's First penalty shouldn't have been given, and the Portsmouth one definitely wasn't a penalty.

[mariner2]

Yes, their position on this ridiculous - putting some pub game down Hackney marshes on the same level as the World Cup Final, the world's most important sporting event bar none, is stupid beyond words, yet this is what they insist upon doing.
I wonder how long before someone comes out with my old favourite of "we wouldn't have anything to talk about if it wasn't for the controversy"?