Im in favour of it but I would prefer the tennis system in which each manager would get one challenge per game, that they get back if proved correct but lose if false, that would stop the managers calling a challenge for every minor decision but hopefully remove the game deciding errors that spoil so many matches.
Obviously it would need a rule that a challenge can't be called when the ball is in play but I doubt it would seriously slow down the game considering how much time that is wasted with players celebrating a goal that may have been incorrectly given or when players are surrounding the ref in outrage over a red card or setting up for a set piece etc.
I know this would not help in a situation like a player being called wrongly offside for a one on one chance but just because the technology is not able to deal with every situation does not mean we should not use it to help with the problems it can assist in.
I am just tired of watching so many good games completely spoiled by a wrong call that change the result of the game as this is meant to be a sport, a contest of tactics and player ability, not about which team gets lucky because the rff has a bad angle of view for an important decision.
A bit of an exaggeration eh GGA? The dodgy penalty on Sunday "completely spoiled" the previous 94 minutes (leaving aside the Palace factor)? Not true is it.
If Pardew had previously (wrongly) used the single challenge you suggest, and there's every chance that he would have done by the 94th minute, the outcome would have been the same. And I can guarantee you many advocates of video refs would have been up in arms screaming that more than one challenge should be allowed.
As SHG says, all or nothing. All will disrupt the game massively. So nothing it should (but wont) be.
Everyone else, please stop comparing football to all other sports that have natural breaks.
What's your point here @Dazzler21? Are you saying the same scenarios that take place in rugby should apply (ie when the referee does not know what to give, he asks for assistance); or the same as in cricket (ie, when the ball is dead, if the official has made a decision that either team wants to challenge, they can do immediately)?
In both of these cases, you can see that the same thing would not work in football.
In rugby, when the referee thinks a try has been scored, he calls the ball dead and the TMS runs through the video replay, informing the referee whether it's a try or not. If it's a try, the referee awards the try and re-starts the clock; if it's not, he re-starts the clock and starts play again with a scrum. There is no similar scenario in football where the game (and the clock) is stopped and you then determine what to give.
In cricket, the "challenge" against a decision always takes place when the ball is dead. The decision by the official is not made until the ball is dead; immediately following this, a challenge can be made. In football, this would work for corner/goal-kick decisions or which team gets the throw-in. But nothing else. It doesn't really help withthemost contentious, most important decisions.
It's not enough to say it works in other sports. What needs to be sorted out is exactly which decisions get reviewed, by whom, when, who decides which ones to review and what happens with re-starts and timings. All of these things have been sorted out for cricket and rugby. None of them has been decided for football.
Comments
If Pardew had previously (wrongly) used the single challenge you suggest, and there's every chance that he would have done by the 94th minute, the outcome would have been the same. And I can guarantee you many advocates of video refs would have been up in arms screaming that more than one challenge should be allowed.
As SHG says, all or nothing. All will disrupt the game massively. So nothing it should (but wont) be.
Everyone else, please stop comparing football to all other sports that have natural breaks.
In both of these cases, you can see that the same thing would not work in football.
In rugby, when the referee thinks a try has been scored, he calls the ball dead and the TMS runs through the video replay, informing the referee whether it's a try or not. If it's a try, the referee awards the try and re-starts the clock; if it's not, he re-starts the clock and starts play again with a scrum. There is no similar scenario in football where the game (and the clock) is stopped and you then determine what to give.
In cricket, the "challenge" against a decision always takes place when the ball is dead. The decision by the official is not made until the ball is dead; immediately following this, a challenge can be made. In football, this would work for corner/goal-kick decisions or which team gets the throw-in. But nothing else. It doesn't really help withthemost contentious, most important decisions.
It's not enough to say it works in other sports. What needs to be sorted out is exactly which decisions get reviewed, by whom, when, who decides which ones to review and what happens with re-starts and timings. All of these things have been sorted out for cricket and rugby. None of them has been decided for football.