What other sports have managed and what football could easily emulate is to use the technology, not just to make the sport fairer, but to improve the spectacle. I agree if teams were calling for reviews every five minutes it would grind - but if you only give them one precious review they won't abuse it and it will add to the excitement and anticipation waiting for the correct decision.
When I said it is crap - I was meaning that you can't compare hackney marshes with the Nou Camp or even the Valley. It is a higher level of the game played for high stakes and requires the standard of decisons to be better. If that means using technolgy - well that is an option we have in the 21st century so no reason why we shouldn't use it. You do have to draw a line, so yes it wouldn't have helped with that throw in - but you always have to draw a line. But don't be nostalgic when you decide where that line should be.
What annoys me more than the well thought out introduction of technolgy would, is to have to watch some of the clowns we get affecting games through their poor officiating skills. The standard is so low and technology would raise it.
I have explained why it does not fit in with football. You have not made a single suggestion or a counter to any of my points Muttley, other than expanding on your statement about "crap". Which is your opinion, and I respect that. I disagree, but I respect it.
Well I respect your position but completely disagree with that. You made points about it 4th or 5th decisons, I explained how that can easily be avoided. Of course we have different positions, but you are as guilty as what you are accusing me of.
Okay - but what I am trying to say is that YOU might be happy with one appeal, behind you will be twenty others saying that it's not enough and that you are being nostalgic by suggesting only one appeal, and you will end up taking up my current position in defending the status quo. Open the floodgates, and you don't know when the deluge will stop.
Ok so you are afraid of opening the floodgates, you think one appeal could work then? Fair enough. Through the ages, that had been a big reason for holding up progress. You do know where to stop and making that choice is a very responsible one - but you also need to be just a responsible where you see the game can be improved.
And if there are 20 others wanting to go further than me - well fair enough. But I think most people will want to apply technology sensibly in a measured way.
Quite right. You are simply looking for reasons not to use technology. Do you work for FIFA?!! :-).
If we'd had some trial and error, in preseason tournaments, for example, or perhaps in the Capital One Cup, and in game video had proved ineffective and impractical then I might have some sympathy, but we haven't. The reason Football is one of the few major sports not using technology (other than goal line) is not for any rational or considered reason, but because it's Sepp Blatter's point of view too.
I have no doubt that we will see in game video at some stage and when we do everybody will be saying "I don't know why we didn't introduce it sooner".
By the way, if a team had used all its appeals prior to a controversial incident then the response would be " .. then you shouldn't have wasted one should you. ..." We can all play the "what if" game. That's why some thoughtful experimentation is needed rather than outright resistance based on arguments that don't stand scrutiny.
Your response might be "you shouldn't have wasted one", others would not. I shan't repeat my reasoning for a third time.
And there is no bigger critic of Blatter than me! :-D
Your suggestion that Managers would request more appeals if clear mistakes were made after the last appeal had been used is well made. However, I'd make two points.
First, if teams retained an appeal if it were successful then they'd only be out of appeals if they made one/two/three in error. That would even things up a bit, making it harder to make a big fuss when a mistake had been made by the referee. The key takeaway might be "don't waste the appeals you have" rather than "lets have more". I don't watch much tennis, but my understanding is that the ranting about line calls has almost stopped. If nothing else the players know they can get it wrong too.
Second, right now we have a huge amount of controversy around refereeing errors. Almost every game is impacted. That's because its an impossible job. The idea of using technology is to reduce this controversy and everything that goes with it. I suspect it would increase respect for referees, for example. However, no system will ever be perfect. It just needs to be better than what we have today. It's an unhelpful feature of much of the defence of the status quo that it tends to focus on all of the potential problems the introduction of technology might bring, seeking a perfection which will never be achieved. Moreover, many of these issues might be resolved with experience.
I'm pleased we agree that Sepp Blatter is the real enemy!! :-)
I see your points, but I really don't think it would stop some managers making a fuss for one minute - remember Fergie's outburst when Schmeichel was sent off against us in the FA cup QF, the replay proved him entirely wrong, not a word of apology to the ref or anyone else, a failed appeal isn't going to change that mindset.
The call in tennis is a factual one - ball out or in - there is no opinion involved, just like goal line technology, too many football decisions are about opinion (I will mention the Church incident that started this whole debate for a third time... ).
The referees are making the same number of mistakes as they have since the 1850s, it's just highlighted more.
Where I will meet you regarding technology is it's use after the fact. Incidents of discipline where the referee made the wrong call during the game should be looked at again - currently only done where the ref missed the incident completely. But even then there is no guarantee they get it right (Osei Sankofa's "frivolous" appeal after the Arsenal sending off).
What other sports have managed and what football could easily emulate is to use the technology, not just to make the sport fairer, but to improve the spectacle. I agree if teams were calling for reviews every five minutes it would grind - but if you only give them one precious review they won't abuse it and it will add to the excitement and anticipation waiting for the correct decision.
When I said it is crap - I was meaning that you can't compare hackney marshes with the Nou Camp or even the Valley. It is a higher level of the game played for high stakes and requires the standard of decisons to be better. If that means using technolgy - well that is an option we have in the 21st century so no reason why we shouldn't use it. You do have to draw a line, so yes it wouldn't have helped with that throw in - but you always have to draw a line. But don't be nostalgic when you decide where that line should be.
What annoys me more than the well thought out introduction of technolgy would, is to have to watch some of the clowns we get affecting games through their poor officiating skills. The standard is so low and technology would raise it.
I have explained why it does not fit in with football. You have not made a single suggestion or a counter to any of my points Muttley, other than expanding on your statement about "crap". Which is your opinion, and I respect that. I disagree, but I respect it.
Well I respect your position but completely disagree with that. You made points about it 4th or 5th decisons, I explained how that can easily be avoided. Of course we have different positions, but you are as guilty as what you are accusing me of.
Okay - but what I am trying to say is that YOU might be happy with one appeal, behind you will be twenty others saying that it's not enough and that you are being nostalgic by suggesting only one appeal, and you will end up taking up my current position in defending the status quo. Open the floodgates, and you don't know when the deluge will stop.
Rules are set at the start of the season and managers, players and supporters know what the rules are and try to abide by them. Some rules seem ridiculous (player having to leave the field after being injured) but every one still abides by the rules. If they were to start with a maximum of three appeals and at the end of the season it proves to be big success, then of course they might consider increasing it to four appeals for the next season. Of course there might be the odd occasion when we say "if only Jacko hadn't wasted that last appeal" but we know the rules as does Jacko, and with time and experience he'll manage the appeal system better, just as the tennis players have learn't how to use it. One thing is for sure, players and fans like the game to flow so the number of appeals would eventually find a natural limit and I suspect that would be nearer five than twenty.
What other sports have managed and what football could easily emulate is to use the technology, not just to make the sport fairer, but to improve the spectacle. I agree if teams were calling for reviews every five minutes it would grind - but if you only give them one precious review they won't abuse it and it will add to the excitement and anticipation waiting for the correct decision.
When I said it is crap - I was meaning that you can't compare hackney marshes with the Nou Camp or even the Valley. It is a higher level of the game played for high stakes and requires the standard of decisons to be better. If that means using technolgy - well that is an option we have in the 21st century so no reason why we shouldn't use it. You do have to draw a line, so yes it wouldn't have helped with that throw in - but you always have to draw a line. But don't be nostalgic when you decide where that line should be.
What annoys me more than the well thought out introduction of technolgy would, is to have to watch some of the clowns we get affecting games through their poor officiating skills. The standard is so low and technology would raise it.
I have explained why it does not fit in with football. You have not made a single suggestion or a counter to any of my points Muttley, other than expanding on your statement about "crap". Which is your opinion, and I respect that. I disagree, but I respect it.
Well I respect your position but completely disagree with that. You made points about it 4th or 5th decisons, I explained how that can easily be avoided. Of course we have different positions, but you are as guilty as what you are accusing me of.
Okay - but what I am trying to say is that YOU might be happy with one appeal, behind you will be twenty others saying that it's not enough and that you are being nostalgic by suggesting only one appeal, and you will end up taking up my current position in defending the status quo. Open the floodgates, and you don't know when the deluge will stop.
Rules are set at the start of the season and managers, players and supporters know what the rules are and try to abide by them. Some rules seem ridiculous (player having to leave the field after being injured) but every one still abides by the rules. If they were to start with a maximum of three appeals and at the end of the season it proves to be big success, then of course they might consider increasing it to four appeals for the next season. Of course there might be the odd occasion when we say "if only Jacko hadn't wasted that last appeal" but we know the rules as does Jacko, and with time and experience he'll manage the appeal system better, just as the tennis players have learn't how to use it. One thing is for sure, players and fans like the game to flow so the number of appeals would eventually find a natural limit and I suspect that would be nearer five than twenty.
Quite right. You are simply looking for reasons not to use technology. Do you work for FIFA?!! :-).
If we'd had some trial and error, in preseason tournaments, for example, or perhaps in the Capital One Cup, and in game video had proved ineffective and impractical then I might have some sympathy, but we haven't. The reason Football is one of the few major sports not using technology (other than goal line) is not for any rational or considered reason, but because it's Sepp Blatter's point of view too.
I have no doubt that we will see in game video at some stage and when we do everybody will be saying "I don't know why we didn't introduce it sooner".
By the way, if a team had used all its appeals prior to a controversial incident then the response would be " .. then you shouldn't have wasted one should you. ..." We can all play the "what if" game. That's why some thoughtful experimentation is needed rather than outright resistance based on arguments that don't stand scrutiny.
Your response might be "you shouldn't have wasted one", others would not. I shan't repeat my reasoning for a third time.
And there is no bigger critic of Blatter than me! :-D
Your suggestion that Managers would request more appeals if clear mistakes were made after the last appeal had been used is well made. However, I'd make two points.
First, if teams retained an appeal if it were successful then they'd only be out of appeals if they made one/two/three in error. That would even things up a bit, making it harder to make a big fuss when a mistake had been made by the referee. The key takeaway might be "don't waste the appeals you have" rather than "lets have more". I don't watch much tennis, but my understanding is that the ranting about line calls has almost stopped. If nothing else the players know they can get it wrong too.
Second, right now we have a huge amount of controversy around refereeing errors. Almost every game is impacted. That's because its an impossible job. The idea of using technology is to reduce this controversy and everything that goes with it. I suspect it would increase respect for referees, for example. However, no system will ever be perfect. It just needs to be better than what we have today. It's an unhelpful feature of much of the defence of the status quo that it tends to focus on all of the potential problems the introduction of technology might bring, seeking a perfection which will never be achieved. Moreover, many of these issues might be resolved with experience.
I'm pleased we agree that Sepp Blatter is the real enemy!! :-)
The referees are making the same number of mistakes as they have since the 1850s, it's just highlighted more.
Not sure that's right. I'd say that the standard of refereeing is higher today, but that they make more critical errors. The primary reason is that the game is so much faster and the margins much finer. You might add to this the dishonesty of the players and a complete lack of respect for the man in the middle. It's become a much harder job I'd say.
What other sports have managed and what football could easily emulate is to use the technology, not just to make the sport fairer, but to improve the spectacle. I agree if teams were calling for reviews every five minutes it would grind - but if you only give them one precious review they won't abuse it and it will add to the excitement and anticipation waiting for the correct decision.
When I said it is crap - I was meaning that you can't compare hackney marshes with the Nou Camp or even the Valley. It is a higher level of the game played for high stakes and requires the standard of decisons to be better. If that means using technolgy - well that is an option we have in the 21st century so no reason why we shouldn't use it. You do have to draw a line, so yes it wouldn't have helped with that throw in - but you always have to draw a line. But don't be nostalgic when you decide where that line should be.
What annoys me more than the well thought out introduction of technolgy would, is to have to watch some of the clowns we get affecting games through their poor officiating skills. The standard is so low and technology would raise it.
I have explained why it does not fit in with football. You have not made a single suggestion or a counter to any of my points Muttley, other than expanding on your statement about "crap". Which is your opinion, and I respect that. I disagree, but I respect it.
Well I respect your position but completely disagree with that. You made points about it 4th or 5th decisons, I explained how that can easily be avoided. Of course we have different positions, but you are as guilty as what you are accusing me of.
Okay - but what I am trying to say is that YOU might be happy with one appeal, behind you will be twenty others saying that it's not enough and that you are being nostalgic by suggesting only one appeal, and you will end up taking up my current position in defending the status quo. Open the floodgates, and you don't know when the deluge will stop.
Rules are set at the start of the season and managers, players and supporters know what the rules are and try to abide by them. Some rules seem ridiculous (player having to leave the field after being injured) but every one still abides by the rules. If they were to start with a maximum of three appeals and at the end of the season it proves to be big success, then of course they might consider increasing it to four appeals for the next season. Of course there might be the odd occasion when we say "if only Jacko hadn't wasted that last appeal" but we know the rules as does Jacko, and with time and experience he'll manage the appeal system better, just as the tennis players have learn't how to use it. One thing is for sure, players and fans like the game to flow so the number of appeals would eventually find a natural limit and I suspect that would be nearer five than twenty.
Quite right. You are simply looking for reasons not to use technology. Do you work for FIFA?!! :-).
If we'd had some trial and error, in preseason tournaments, for example, or perhaps in the Capital One Cup, and in game video had proved ineffective and impractical then I might have some sympathy, but we haven't. The reason Football is one of the few major sports not using technology (other than goal line) is not for any rational or considered reason, but because it's Sepp Blatter's point of view too.
I have no doubt that we will see in game video at some stage and when we do everybody will be saying "I don't know why we didn't introduce it sooner".
By the way, if a team had used all its appeals prior to a controversial incident then the response would be " .. then you shouldn't have wasted one should you. ..." We can all play the "what if" game. That's why some thoughtful experimentation is needed rather than outright resistance based on arguments that don't stand scrutiny.
Your response might be "you shouldn't have wasted one", others would not. I shan't repeat my reasoning for a third time.
And there is no bigger critic of Blatter than me! :-D
Your suggestion that Managers would request more appeals if clear mistakes were made after the last appeal had been used is well made. However, I'd make two points.
First, if teams retained an appeal if it were successful then they'd only be out of appeals if they made one/two/three in error. That would even things up a bit, making it harder to make a big fuss when a mistake had been made by the referee. The key takeaway might be "don't waste the appeals you have" rather than "lets have more". I don't watch much tennis, but my understanding is that the ranting about line calls has almost stopped. If nothing else the players know they can get it wrong too.
Second, right now we have a huge amount of controversy around refereeing errors. Almost every game is impacted. That's because its an impossible job. The idea of using technology is to reduce this controversy and everything that goes with it. I suspect it would increase respect for referees, for example. However, no system will ever be perfect. It just needs to be better than what we have today. It's an unhelpful feature of much of the defence of the status quo that it tends to focus on all of the potential problems the introduction of technology might bring, seeking a perfection which will never be achieved. Moreover, many of these issues might be resolved with experience.
I'm pleased we agree that Sepp Blatter is the real enemy!! :-)
The referees are making the same number of mistakes as they have since the 1850s, it's just highlighted more.
Not sure that's right. I'd say that the standard of refereeing is higher today, but that they make more critical errors. The primary reason is that the game is so much faster and the margins much finer. You might add to this the dishonesty of the players and a complete lack of respect for the man in the middle. It's become a much harder job I'd say.
I'm afraid you quite obviously dont understand/watch Rugby League. When a tackle is made the play does not 'stop' ( or maybe YOU had missed that) - the defending side has to immediately retreat by 10 metres and the play continues almost immediately by 'as long as it takes the tackled player to return to his feet' - a tad quicker than any footballer methinks after a free-kick! . I think you will find that free-kicks/throw-ins in football have a FAR longer stop than anything in RL - were you at Barnsley game mid-week? - that would have proved that point !
What? So play continuing "almost immediately" isn't stopping then Pres? After a tackle the ball goes dead until they do the backheel thing. But that's not the point anyway - the replays are only used once the game does "stop" (by any definition) when the ball goes over the tryline: offside, penalty and free kick decisions in football are all made while the ball is in play.
Will the relagated clubs from the PL be using the Goal line technology next season? I have just seen with all the technology that F1 has they cannot count the number of laps completed :-)
I was thinking about the Fulham throw in - It could have been reviewed using such a system as it was a wrong decision that immediately led to a goal. Imagine that - would it have made that game more enjoyable or not?
And where would we be now if technology was adopted then!
It is a good point about the difficulty for officials - players are constantly trying to deceive them - technology would make the game more honest again - would that be a bad thing?
It is good to see a mature debate on this thread, recognising that humans do make mistakes, players do con referees and the greater use of technology may be the way forward. At the end of the day, we all are aiming for the same goal (no pun intended), which is a greater number of correct decisions, but recognising that some decisions are judgemental.
It is good to see a mature debate on this thread, recognising that humans do make mistakes, players do con referees and the greater use of technology may be the way forward. At the end of the day, we all are aiming for the same goal (no pun intended), which is a greater number of correct decisions, but recognising that some decisions are judgemental.
Surely one of the worst traits of a lino is that they believe they are super human when it comes to giving certain types of offside decision (eg attacker moving towards goal and defender in opposite direction). The percentage of these they get right I would say is no better than tossing a coin because eye/brain co-ordination is not capable of making an accurate judgement. The laws have been changed a number of times to make it easier for them but they just do not learn.
I remember seeing a "count the basketball passes" test years ago which is quite amusing. (I won't ruin it for those that want to give it a try. But have a look at the web site afterwards.) It might go some way towards explaining why Refs sometimes miss stuff!
I was thinking about the Fulham throw in - It could have been reviewed using such a system as it was a wrong decision that immediately led to a goal. Imagine that - would it have made that game more enjoyable or not?
And where would we be now if technology was adopted then!
It is a good point about the difficulty for officials - players are constantly trying to deceive them - technology would make the game more honest again - would that be a bad thing?
It's a brilliant example as to why it wouldn't usually work. A) The throw was late in the game, every chance that the one to three appeals would have been used by then. It was a throw in, in a not particularly dangerous position, if you did have one left, would you really use one of your precious appeals to contest a throw in? Imagine the furore and the pressure on the captain if two minutes later there was a clear penalty missed by the ref and the skipper had "wasted" the appeal reversing a throw in decision?
Another couple of things that have occurred to me, if you have ever watched Dermot Gallagher on SSN on Monday mornings reviewing the referees decisions over the weekend (is he still doing that?), you can count the number of times a season that he disagrees with a crucial decision on one hand. The refs really hate going out on a limb to criticise their colleagues, why would it be any different with a fifth official watching a screen?
Also imagine a ref has had three decisions for the away team appealed and reversed in the first ten minutes, as if there is not enough pressure on them already can you imagine being in that situation with the crowd on your back?
I agree that the technology can make the game more honest, which is why I suggested more post match reviews. And the punishments should be very severe for diving and cheating picked up on review after the game. Even points deductions in some cases.
Yesterday's Hull v Arsenal game gave us a sparkling example of the difficulties involved. What looked like a free kick to Hull on the edge of the Arsenal box turned down, and then Arsenal immediately go up the other end and score. Well, I shall have to hold me hands up to that one on the refereeing debate in CL tomorrow, I thought, it's exactly the situation that those advocating appeals are talking about. In that scenario Hull immediately contest the free kick that's not been given, goal disallowed game called back for Hull to take the free kick. I see it again, to me it's a Hull free kick. Niall Quinn - "Minimal contact, no free kick". Back to square one aren't we - someone has to make a decision on a matter of opinion, and opinions (like the Church penalty) will differ, seeing it again on the tele has not made a ha'peth of difference. If the fifth official says "free kick" those that disagree are on his back and if he says goal stands vice versa, you just end up blaming a different bloke...
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Absolutely this - as my qualified referee mate is always telling me "there is nothing in the laws about intent".
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
Ref's still a to**er for missing it though...
;-)
We could easily bring replays in for the officials only. It could be limited to a set amount of appeals per half or game with the captain deciding how to use them. Even with decisions that require an opinion, it works brilliantly in other sports. Look at the NFL, cricket, tennis and rugby.
All games with natural breaks in play, unlike football.
Of course replays would be for officials only, who else would make the decision - the tea lady - LOL...
It works brilliantly with other sports, except where it doesn't - how many times have you seen it take five minutes and eight different angles for no-one to know whether the ball is grounded or a foot is out of play in rugby? The replay has now become the first option in run out decisions in cricket, they call for a replay when the runner is past the bloody stumps when the bails come off. And even in those games, the appeals are limited to certain plays, where would you draw the line in football, throw ins, offsides (given and missed), penalties (given and missed) and so on? Yesterday is a good case in point, the pen not given, play could then go on for five minutes without a break, do you then wipe out five minutes of play?
If you give a limited number of appeals the next one will always be the controversial one, and the media will be calling for an increase in the number of appeals as soon as one of their little favourites is apparently hard done by. And of course, there will still be exactly the kind of debate we have going on here where some people will swear the decision was completely wrong...
The number of cameras available at any one ground and the quality of the operators will create an imbalance - imagine if Arsene Wenger was a cameraman, how many times would he "miss" a controversial incident involving the opposition?
Why should we have to wait 5 minutes to review an incident? I think a current mis-perception with technology in football is that you have to wait for the game to stop to review an incident. At the moment when goalmouth decisions are reviewed at games this is done without stopping the game so why can't say the 4th official be able to review these incidents on the sidelines without waiting for the game to stop? Then if it's found the decision should be given just go back and award the decision.
The pace that football is played at would not allow this; a quick breakwaway goal could be scored while checking the replay, what then happens to that goal? In other sports where video is used such as cricket and rugby there are times when several replays are needed and the same would happen in football. Video for penalty decisions would have to mean stopping play and for that reason I hope it never happens
If a quick breakaway goal was scored while checking the replay, you would give the goal if the earlier incident was deemed to have not been a penalty. Had the earlier incident been deemed a foul after a replay you would then stop play regardess of what's happened and go back and award the penalty if it was deemed a foul. You keep playing the game but understand that the ref would have the right/power to stop play and go back and award a decision (within a reasonable timeframe) and if that meant ruling out a goal scored at the opposite end of the pitch then so be it as that goal would have been scored as the result of an attack that shouldn't have allowed to have happened in the first place.
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Absolutely this - as my qualified referee mate is always telling me "there is nothing in the laws about intent".
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
Ref's still a to**er for missing it though...
;-)
We could easily bring replays in for the officials only. It could be limited to a set amount of appeals per half or game with the captain deciding how to use them. Even with decisions that require an opinion, it works brilliantly in other sports. Look at the NFL, cricket, tennis and rugby.
All games with natural breaks in play, unlike football.
Of course replays would be for officials only, who else would make the decision - the tea lady - LOL...
It works brilliantly with other sports, except where it doesn't - how many times have you seen it take five minutes and eight different angles for no-one to know whether the ball is grounded or a foot is out of play in rugby? The replay has now become the first option in run out decisions in cricket, they call for a replay when the runner is past the bloody stumps when the bails come off. And even in those games, the appeals are limited to certain plays, where would you draw the line in football, throw ins, offsides (given and missed), penalties (given and missed) and so on? Yesterday is a good case in point, the pen not given, play could then go on for five minutes without a break, do you then wipe out five minutes of play?
If you give a limited number of appeals the next one will always be the controversial one, and the media will be calling for an increase in the number of appeals as soon as one of their little favourites is apparently hard done by. And of course, there will still be exactly the kind of debate we have going on here where some people will swear the decision was completely wrong...
The number of cameras available at any one ground and the quality of the operators will create an imbalance - imagine if Arsene Wenger was a cameraman, how many times would he "miss" a controversial incident involving the opposition?
Why should we have to wait 5 minutes to review an incident? I think a current mis-perception with technology in football is that you have to wait for the game to stop to review an incident. At the moment when goalmouth decisions are reviewed at games this is done without stopping the game so why can't say the 4th official be able to review these incidents on the sidelines without waiting for the game to stop? Then if it's found the decision should be given just go back and award the decision.
The pace that football is played at would not allow this; a quick breakwaway goal could be scored while checking the replay, what then happens to that goal? In other sports where video is used such as cricket and rugby there are times when several replays are needed and the same would happen in football. Video for penalty decisions would have to mean stopping play and for that reason I hope it never happens
If a quick breakaway goal was scored while checking the replay, you would give the goal if the earlier incident was deemed to have not been a penalty. Had the earlier incident been deemed a foul after a replay you would then stop play regardess of what's happened and go back and award the penalty if it was deemed a foul. You keep playing the game but understand that the ref would have the right/power to stop play and go back and award a decision (within a reasonable timeframe) and if that meant ruling out a goal scored at the opposite end of the pitch then so be it as that goal would have been scored as the result of an attack that shouldn't have allowed to have happened in the first place.
Why within a "reasonable time frame" the whole argument of the pro-video replay gang is based around getting more decisions 100% correct. If that is really what you want, surely it shouldn't matter if play has gone on for ten minutes before a break in play, the right decision MUST be given?
Comments
And if there are 20 others wanting to go further than me - well fair enough. But I think most people will want to apply technology sensibly in a measured way.
The call in tennis is a factual one - ball out or in - there is no opinion involved, just like goal line technology, too many football decisions are about opinion (I will mention the Church incident that started this whole debate for a third time... ).
The referees are making the same number of mistakes as they have since the 1850s, it's just highlighted more.
Where I will meet you regarding technology is it's use after the fact. Incidents of discipline where the referee made the wrong call during the game should be looked at again - currently only done where the ref missed the incident completely. But even then there is no guarantee they get it right (Osei Sankofa's "frivolous" appeal after the Arsenal sending off).
And where would we be now if technology was adopted then!
It is a good point about the difficulty for officials - players are constantly trying to deceive them - technology would make the game more honest again - would that be a bad thing?
I remember seeing a "count the basketball passes" test years ago which is quite amusing. (I won't ruin it for those that want to give it a try. But have a look at the web site afterwards.) It might go some way towards explaining why Refs sometimes miss stuff!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
Another couple of things that have occurred to me, if you have ever watched Dermot Gallagher on SSN on Monday mornings reviewing the referees decisions over the weekend (is he still doing that?), you can count the number of times a season that he disagrees with a crucial decision on one hand. The refs really hate going out on a limb to criticise their colleagues, why would it be any different with a fifth official watching a screen?
Also imagine a ref has had three decisions for the away team appealed and reversed in the first ten minutes, as if there is not enough pressure on them already can you imagine being in that situation with the crowd on your back?
I agree that the technology can make the game more honest, which is why I suggested more post match reviews. And the punishments should be very severe for diving and cheating picked up on review after the game. Even points deductions in some cases.
Yesterday's Hull v Arsenal game gave us a sparkling example of the difficulties involved. What looked like a free kick to Hull on the edge of the Arsenal box turned down, and then Arsenal immediately go up the other end and score. Well, I shall have to hold me hands up to that one on the refereeing debate in CL tomorrow, I thought, it's exactly the situation that those advocating appeals are talking about. In that scenario Hull immediately contest the free kick that's not been given, goal disallowed game called back for Hull to take the free kick. I see it again, to me it's a Hull free kick. Niall Quinn - "Minimal contact, no free kick". Back to square one aren't we - someone has to make a decision on a matter of opinion, and opinions (like the Church penalty) will differ, seeing it again on the tele has not made a ha'peth of difference. If the fifth official says "free kick" those that disagree are on his back and if he says goal stands vice versa, you just end up blaming a different bloke...