From everything that's been said officially, it'll only be matters of fact that are referred to video and when play has already stopped. So it'll be just the following situations initially:
1. Goals is scored, check for offside 2. Ball put in net, but flag goes up, check for offside 3. Freekick/penalty is given around the edge of the box, check which side of the line the offence took place.
None of those situations will take any significant time out of the game, none will undermine the on-pitch officials, and none will requires matters of opinion to get involved. Nobody is talking about using video for all decisions, just matters of fact that can be determined one way of the other quickly.
I'd far rather the right decisons were made, whether it be on-pitch or via video, than the alternative of letting wrong decision ruin matches because we were too afraid to try something else.
Why? Do you want games decided by wrong decisions?
What if those doing the video technology get if wrong... Happens in cricket. And to what is it going to be applied to. I want a game to ffinish at 16.55/21.40 not 18.00 & 22.30
What a load of tosh, I have never seen a rugby game run over by an hour due to video appeals.
So there will be no delay, and of course i was exaggerating most sensible people knew that
Why? Do you want games decided by wrong decisions?
What if those doing the video technology get if wrong... Happens in cricket. And to what is it going to be applied to. I want a game to ffinish at 16.55/21.40 not 18.00 & 22.30
What a load of tosh, I have never seen a rugby game run over by an hour due to video appeals.
So there will be no delay, and of course i was exaggerating most sensible people knew that
The question isn't whether or not there will be a delay, the question is will the time taken by the video ref be longer than the amount of time the team on the wrong end of the original decision contest it with the referee. It generally takes a minute or more from when the ball hits the net to the game kicking off again, longer if the defending team are chasing the ref to insist it was offside. In last night's trial it took less than 50 seconds every single time the video ref studied a decision. Based on that your concerns would seem baseless.
lets say the linesman gives the winger as offside though he wasn't (no referral for that) but as the attacking team you continue the play and the winger after the whistle crosses the ball and the striker puts it into the back of the net while the defenders and goalkeeper have already stopped playing due to the whistle being blown for the offside. what happens then?
From everything that's been said officially, it'll only be matters of fact that are referred to video and when play has already stopped. So it'll be just the following situations initially:
1. Goals is scored, check for offside 2. Ball put in net, but flag goes up, check for offside 3. Freekick/penalty is given around the edge of the box, check which side of the line the offence took place.
None of those situations will take any significant time out of the game, none will undermine the on-pitch officials, and none will requires matters of opinion to get involved. Nobody is talking about using video for all decisions, just matters of fact that can be determined one way of the other quickly.
I'd far rather the right decisons were made, whether it be on-pitch or via video, than the alternative of letting wrong decision ruin matches because we were too afraid to try something else.
I refer you back to my "thin end of the wedge" comment. You will get people saying "if we can use it for this, we can use it for that" - managers in particular. Then you will be the person taking my position saying, no, that's all wrong. It will encompass everything, eventually, it's only logical. And I also stand by the consistency - I want football to be football, not football and video ball depending on which league you are playing in.
A wrong decision never "ruined" a match. The game itself is still the same, just the outcome is (or isn't) to your liking, depending on which stand you are sitting in...
Of course its a good idea, its been needed for years, the game is so fast compared to when the elderly chubbers who are moaning about the new technology played. Yes its not infallible, there will always be a few decisions that cant be determined, but thats no reason to not embrace it, it will get more right than wrong and right now there are so many errors made by refs. Also its total bollox that it will extend the game time, whenever there is a contentious decision at the moment, the referee is surrounded by players who piss and whine, that takes more time to sort out than a bloke in the stand checking a replay.
Why? Do you want games decided by wrong decisions?
What if those doing the video technology get if wrong... Happens in cricket. And to what is it going to be applied to. I want a game to ffinish at 16.55/21.40 not 18.00 & 22.30
What a load of tosh, I have never seen a rugby game run over by an hour due to video appeals.
So there will be no delay, and of course i was exaggerating most sensible people knew that
The question isn't whether or not there will be a delay, the question is will the time taken by the video ref be longer than the amount of time the team on the wrong end of the original decision contest it with the referee. It generally takes a minute or more from when the ball hits the net to the game kicking off again, longer if the defending team are chasing the ref to insist it was offside. In last night's trial it took less than 50 seconds every single time the video ref studied a decision. Based on that your concerns would seem baseless.
If its baseless what if there are several off side reviews. Will the game still finish on time, and ss algarve ss said where eill it end. Be careful what you wish for.
To what levels will it be applied. Just to the premier league again i assume.
I believe the FA wish to trial it in the FA Cup next season, no doubt from the 4th/5th round onwards though.
I ask this as i was at a game on Saturday hartley wintney v Horley town. Hartley needed a point to win the league and promotion (they were denied last year as their ground needed upgrading). They were trailing 1-0, when they were denied a clear penalty which was a trip a yard inside the box. I saw it as i was inline. Lino gave a free kick outside. Of course they didn't score and lost. After last year it mattered to them as their ground has been updated, so it should also apply at this level.
agreed, but we all know it only matters at the highest level because of the money involved, and not morality. Sympathy for Hartley, but the FA will only care about the multi-million pound decisions and the decisions at the very top. The decisions that Mr Wenger makes a point about complaining about every week.
How much do you think this technology will cost? How could it possibly be filtered down to grass roots football?
because the FA could afford it?
So they could equip all grounds with live recording, instant playback, multiple angle equipment - and they can pay for the fourth official to carry out reviews? While we are at it they could also pay for goal line technology to be provided for all grounds.
Hartley Wintney play in tier NINE at a ground with a capacity of 2000 and an average home crowd of a couple of hundred.
Lets have it then... The 4th official reviews and overturns, then at ht all the cameras suggest the 4th official was wrong to overturn it. So we then have a 2nd reviewer reviiewing the first reviewer.
Not to worry will only add another 50 seconds. Game will finish on time assuming they dont stop the clock, until the losing manager whinges there was no added time for all the reviews which are only a matter of opinion in most cases.
From everything that's been said officially, it'll only be matters of fact that are referred to video and when play has already stopped. So it'll be just the following situations initially:
1. Goals is scored, check for offside 2. Ball put in net, but flag goes up, check for offside 3. Freekick/penalty is given around the edge of the box, check which side of the line the offence took place.
None of those situations will take any significant time out of the game, none will undermine the on-pitch officials, and none will requires matters of opinion to get involved. Nobody is talking about using video for all decisions, just matters of fact that can be determined one way of the other quickly.
I'd far rather the right decisons were made, whether it be on-pitch or via video, than the alternative of letting wrong decision ruin matches because we were too afraid to try something else.
If it's true that every goal that is scored will be checked for offside, why would the assistant referee ever risk flagging someone offside? One of the (few) downsides of the review system in cricket is that umpires now very rarely signal no-ball.
Do we really want to change the game by ruining the passionate, exciting crescendo of a goal being slammed in the net and the instant ecstacy that creates and, instead, having every goal diminshed by being a mere trigger for a desk-based administrator to pore over evidence and make a determination?
I don't want a goal to turn into a laborious, dull excercise of waiting for a faceless clerk to tell me if we can increment one team's goal-count by one. I want it to remain as it is - a public reason to go instantaneously fucking mental.
To what levels will it be applied. Just to the premier league again i assume.
I believe the FA wish to trial it in the FA Cup next season, no doubt from the 4th/5th round onwards though.
I ask this as i was at a game on Saturday hartley wintney v Horley town. Hartley needed a point to win the league and promotion (they were denied last year as their ground needed upgrading). They were trailing 1-0, when they were denied a clear penalty which was a trip a yard inside the box. I saw it as i was inline. Lino gave a free kick outside. Of course they didn't score and lost. After last year it mattered to them as their ground has been updated, so it should also apply at this level.
agreed, but we all know it only matters at the highest level because of the money involved, and not morality. Sympathy for Hartley, but the FA will only care about the multi-million pound decisions and the decisions at the very top. The decisions that Mr Wenger makes a point about complaining about every week.
How much do you think this technology will cost? How could it possibly be filtered down to grass roots football?
because the FA could afford it?
So they could equip all grounds with live recording, instant playback, multiple angle equipment - and they can pay for the fourth official to carry out reviews? While we are at it they could also pay for goal line technology to be provided for all grounds.
Hartley Wintney play in tier NINE at a ground with a capacity of 2000 and an average home crowd of a couple of hundred.
Don't be silly!!
How about as part of selling the next package of games to Sky, BT etc. they include a fund to pay for installation of video ref equipment at all grounds in the FL92, plus a fund to upgrade promoted clubs as and when, provided the TV companies also get access to the footage instantly for TV purposes (just like in rugby). Then only make it compulsory to use a video ref for games held at these grounds (so if Arsenal went away to a non-league team, they wouldn't have to use video reffing).
Why? Do you want games decided by wrong decisions?
What if those doing the video technology get if wrong... Happens in cricket. And to what is it going to be applied to. I want a game to ffinish at 16.55/21.40 not 18.00 & 22.30
What a load of tosh, I have never seen a rugby game run over by an hour due to video appeals.
So there will be no delay, and of course i was exaggerating most sensible people knew that
The question isn't whether or not there will be a delay, the question is will the time taken by the video ref be longer than the amount of time the team on the wrong end of the original decision contest it with the referee. It generally takes a minute or more from when the ball hits the net to the game kicking off again, longer if the defending team are chasing the ref to insist it was offside. In last night's trial it took less than 50 seconds every single time the video ref studied a decision. Based on that your concerns would seem baseless.
If its baseless what if there are several off side reviews. Will the game still finish on time, and ss algarve ss said where eill it end. Be careful what you wish for.
The game never finishes "on-time", that's what stoppage time is. We may see stoppage time increase, but only because referees are unlikely to have included time he spent fending off gaggles of players contesting his decisions.
My only concern is that it becomes like front-foot no-balls in cricket. I.e. whenever the ball is bouncing around the box the linesman simply won't flag for offside, even if he thinks there is one, knowing that any incorrect goals will get reviewed and disallowed. It will take strong leadership from the FA on this, which is never a given unfortunately.
Concerns about games running overly long seem to be massively exagerated. Technology will initially be used in a small set of well defined circumstances, trialled extensively and judged on it's merits. If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits (quality of decisions vs time taken). So checking to see if a goals should be ruled out for offside is quick and easy and improved decisions, include it.
From everything that's been said officially, it'll only be matters of fact that are referred to video and when play has already stopped. So it'll be just the following situations initially:
1. Goals is scored, check for offside 2. Ball put in net, but flag goes up, check for offside 3. Freekick/penalty is given around the edge of the box, check which side of the line the offence took place.
None of those situations will take any significant time out of the game, none will undermine the on-pitch officials, and none will requires matters of opinion to get involved. Nobody is talking about using video for all decisions, just matters of fact that can be determined one way of the other quickly.
I'd far rather the right decisons were made, whether it be on-pitch or via video, than the alternative of letting wrong decision ruin matches because we were too afraid to try something else.
If it's true that every goal that is scored will be checked for offside, why would the assistant referee ever risk flagging someone offside? One of the (few) downsides of the review system in cricket is that umpires now very rarely signal no-ball.
Do we really want to change the game by ruining the passionate, exciting crescendo of a goal being slammed in the net and the instant ecstacy that creates and, instead, having every goal diminshed by being a mere trigger for a esk-based administrator to pore over evidence and make a determination?
I don't want a goal to turn into a laborious, dull excercise of waiting for a faceless clerk to tell me if we can increment one team's goal-count by one. I want it to remain as it is - a public reason to go instantaneously fucking mental.
Post of the thread so far. Too many people losing what the essence of football (and indeed life) is. Too wrapped up in everything having to be to do with money. Cut loose people, stop letting the £££ dictate your thinking (man...).
To what levels will it be applied. Just to the premier league again i assume.
I believe the FA wish to trial it in the FA Cup next season, no doubt from the 4th/5th round onwards though.
I ask this as i was at a game on Saturday hartley wintney v Horley town. Hartley needed a point to win the league and promotion (they were denied last year as their ground needed upgrading). They were trailing 1-0, when they were denied a clear penalty which was a trip a yard inside the box. I saw it as i was inline. Lino gave a free kick outside. Of course they didn't score and lost. After last year it mattered to them as their ground has been updated, so it should also apply at this level.
agreed, but we all know it only matters at the highest level because of the money involved, and not morality. Sympathy for Hartley, but the FA will only care about the multi-million pound decisions and the decisions at the very top. The decisions that Mr Wenger makes a point about complaining about every week.
How much do you think this technology will cost? How could it possibly be filtered down to grass roots football?
because the FA could afford it?
So they could equip all grounds with live recording, instant playback, multiple angle equipment - and they can pay for the fourth official to carry out reviews? While we are at it they could also pay for goal line technology to be provided for all grounds.
Hartley Wintney play in tier NINE at a ground with a capacity of 2000 and an average home crowd of a couple of hundred.
Don't be silly!!
They dont even get 200 usually but there was a few more than that Saturday but yes it was important to them.... How far would you go then.
From everything that's been said officially, it'll only be matters of fact that are referred to video and when play has already stopped. So it'll be just the following situations initially:
1. Goals is scored, check for offside 2. Ball put in net, but flag goes up, check for offside 3. Freekick/penalty is given around the edge of the box, check which side of the line the offence took place.
None of those situations will take any significant time out of the game, none will undermine the on-pitch officials, and none will requires matters of opinion to get involved. Nobody is talking about using video for all decisions, just matters of fact that can be determined one way of the other quickly.
I'd far rather the right decisons were made, whether it be on-pitch or via video, than the alternative of letting wrong decision ruin matches because we were too afraid to try something else.
If it's true that every goal that is scored will be checked for offside, why would the assistant referee ever risk flagging someone offside? One of the (few) downsides of the review system in cricket is that umpires now very rarely signal no-ball.
Do we really want to change the game by ruining the passionate, exciting crescendo of a goal being slammed in the net and the instant ecstacy that creates and, instead, having every goal diminshed by being a mere trigger for a esk-based administrator to pore over evidence and make a determination?
I don't want a goal to turn into a laborious, dull excercise of waiting for a faceless clerk to tell me if we can increment one team's goal-count by one. I want it to remain as it is - a public reason to go instantaneously fucking mental.
Brilliant post. Goal - wait a minute, don't celebrate yet - ok, now you can celebrate.
From everything that's been said officially, it'll only be matters of fact that are referred to video and when play has already stopped. So it'll be just the following situations initially:
1. Goals is scored, check for offside 2. Ball put in net, but flag goes up, check for offside 3. Freekick/penalty is given around the edge of the box, check which side of the line the offence took place.
None of those situations will take any significant time out of the game, none will undermine the on-pitch officials, and none will requires matters of opinion to get involved. Nobody is talking about using video for all decisions, just matters of fact that can be determined one way of the other quickly.
I'd far rather the right decisons were made, whether it be on-pitch or via video, than the alternative of letting wrong decision ruin matches because we were too afraid to try something else.
If it's true that every goal that is scored will be checked for offside, why would the assistant referee ever risk flagging someone offside? One of the (few) downsides of the review system in cricket is that umpires now very rarely signal no-ball.
Do we really want to change the game by ruining the passionate, exciting crescendo of a goal being slammed in the net and the instant ecstacy that creates and, instead, having every goal diminshed by being a mere trigger for a esk-based administrator to pore over evidence and make a determination?
I don't want a goal to turn into a laborious, dull excercise of waiting for a faceless clerk to tell me if we can increment one team's goal-count by one. I want it to remain as it is - a public reason to go instantaneously fucking mental.
Brilliant post. Goal - wait a minute, don't celebrate yet - ok, now you can celebrate.
Conversely......lots of........aaaaaaagggghhhhhhh......sit down shut up, sit down shut up.
From everything that's been said officially, it'll only be matters of fact that are referred to video and when play has already stopped. So it'll be just the following situations initially:
1. Goals is scored, check for offside 2. Ball put in net, but flag goes up, check for offside 3. Freekick/penalty is given around the edge of the box, check which side of the line the offence took place.
None of those situations will take any significant time out of the game, none will undermine the on-pitch officials, and none will requires matters of opinion to get involved. Nobody is talking about using video for all decisions, just matters of fact that can be determined one way of the other quickly.
I'd far rather the right decisons were made, whether it be on-pitch or via video, than the alternative of letting wrong decision ruin matches because we were too afraid to try something else.
If it's true that every goal that is scored will be checked for offside, why would the assistant referee ever risk flagging someone offside? One of the (few) downsides of the review system in cricket is that umpires now very rarely signal no-ball.
Do we really want to change the game by ruining the passionate, exciting crescendo of a goal being slammed in the net and the instant ecstacy that creates and, instead, having every goal diminshed by being a mere trigger for a esk-based administrator to pore over evidence and make a determination?
I don't want a goal to turn into a laborious, dull excercise of waiting for a faceless clerk to tell me if we can increment one team's goal-count by one. I want it to remain as it is - a public reason to go instantaneously fucking mental.
Couldn't agree more. Maybe I'm just an old fart but football is a game played by humans (in most cases) and humans sometimes make mistakes.
Totally agree with using it to issue retrospective bans for bad tackles etc that refs miss and can live with the goal line cameras. However, don't want to see the human element of the game diminished any further, even if some decisions are given incorrectly (shit happens get over it)
From everything that's been said officially, it'll only be matters of fact that are referred to video and when play has already stopped. So it'll be just the following situations initially:
1. Goals is scored, check for offside 2. Ball put in net, but flag goes up, check for offside 3. Freekick/penalty is given around the edge of the box, check which side of the line the offence took place.
None of those situations will take any significant time out of the game, none will undermine the on-pitch officials, and none will requires matters of opinion to get involved. Nobody is talking about using video for all decisions, just matters of fact that can be determined one way of the other quickly.
I'd far rather the right decisons were made, whether it be on-pitch or via video, than the alternative of letting wrong decision ruin matches because we were too afraid to try something else.
If it's true that every goal that is scored will be checked for offside, why would the assistant referee ever risk flagging someone offside? One of the (few) downsides of the review system in cricket is that umpires now very rarely signal no-ball.
Do we really want to change the game by ruining the passionate, exciting crescendo of a goal being slammed in the net and the instant ecstacy that creates and, instead, having every goal diminshed by being a mere trigger for a esk-based administrator to pore over evidence and make a determination?
I don't want a goal to turn into a laborious, dull excercise of waiting for a faceless clerk to tell me if we can increment one team's goal-count by one. I want it to remain as it is - a public reason to go instantaneously fucking mental.
Brilliant post. Goal - wait a minute, don't celebrate yet - ok, now you can celebrate.
Why? Do you want games decided by wrong decisions?
What if those doing the video technology get if wrong... Happens in cricket. And to what is it going to be applied to. I want a game to ffinish at 16.55/21.40 not 18.00 & 22.30
What a load of tosh, I have never seen a rugby game run over by an hour due to video appeals.
So there will be no delay, and of course i was exaggerating most sensible people knew that
The question isn't whether or not there will be a delay, the question is will the time taken by the video ref be longer than the amount of time the team on the wrong end of the original decision contest it with the referee. It generally takes a minute or more from when the ball hits the net to the game kicking off again, longer if the defending team are chasing the ref to insist it was offside. In last night's trial it took less than 50 seconds every single time the video ref studied a decision. Based on that your concerns would seem baseless.
If its baseless what if there are several off side reviews. Will the game still finish on time, and ss algarve ss said where eill it end. Be careful what you wish for.
The game never finishes "on-time", that's what stoppage time is. We may see stoppage time increase, but only because referees are unlikely to have included time he spent fending off gaggles of players contesting his decisions.
My only concern is that it becomes like front-foot no-balls in cricket. I.e. whenever the ball is bouncing around the box the linesman simply won't flag for offside, even if he thinks there is one, knowing that any incorrect goals will get reviewed and disallowed. It will take strong leadership from the FA on this, which is never a given unfortunately.
Concerns about games running overly long seem to be massively exagerated. Technology will initially be used in a small set of well defined circumstances, trialled extensively and judged on it's merits. If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits (quality of decisions vs time taken). So checking to see if a goals should be ruled out for offside is quick and easy and improved decisions, include it.
This statement: "If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits" seems to be completely at odds with this one: "Also, mentioned of "thin edge of the wedge" are a bit off the mark"? Each expansion is going further down the "slippery slope", clearly.
You are agitating for change up to the arbitrary point that you have chosen. Others (as I have said) will not agree, they will want to take it further. At which point you become the stick-in-the-mud, like me, and they tell you they are progressive and that change is inevitable
Why? Do you want games decided by wrong decisions?
What if those doing the video technology get if wrong... Happens in cricket. And to what is it going to be applied to. I want a game to ffinish at 16.55/21.40 not 18.00 & 22.30
What a load of tosh, I have never seen a rugby game run over by an hour due to video appeals.
So there will be no delay, and of course i was exaggerating most sensible people knew that
The question isn't whether or not there will be a delay, the question is will the time taken by the video ref be longer than the amount of time the team on the wrong end of the original decision contest it with the referee. It generally takes a minute or more from when the ball hits the net to the game kicking off again, longer if the defending team are chasing the ref to insist it was offside. In last night's trial it took less than 50 seconds every single time the video ref studied a decision. Based on that your concerns would seem baseless.
If its baseless what if there are several off side reviews. Will the game still finish on time, and ss algarve ss said where eill it end. Be careful what you wish for.
The game never finishes "on-time", that's what stoppage time is. We may see stoppage time increase, but only because referees are unlikely to have included time he spent fending off gaggles of players contesting his decisions.
My only concern is that it becomes like front-foot no-balls in cricket. I.e. whenever the ball is bouncing around the box the linesman simply won't flag for offside, even if he thinks there is one, knowing that any incorrect goals will get reviewed and disallowed. It will take strong leadership from the FA on this, which is never a given unfortunately.
Concerns about games running overly long seem to be massively exagerated. Technology will initially be used in a small set of well defined circumstances, trialled extensively and judged on it's merits. If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits (quality of decisions vs time taken). So checking to see if a goals should be ruled out for offside is quick and easy and improved decisions, include it.
This statement: "If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits" seems to be completely at odds with this one: "Also, mentioned of "thin edge of the wedge" are a bit off the mark"? Each expansion is going further down the "slippery slope", clearly.
You are agitating for change up to the arbitrary point that you have chosen. Others (as I have said) will not agree, they will want to take it further. At which point you become the stick-in-the-mud, like me, and they tell you they are progressive and that change is inevitable
As long as each suggested change is researched and trialled to see it's effect on the game I'm for anything that improves the level of decision quality as long as it doesn't impact negatively on other aspects.
As it stands, players cheat, continually and without remorse. They will take any advantage they can possibly get and try to con the ref at every opportunity. If we could remove even a fraction of that from the game then I think it's worth it. I want to see great football, not great cheaters winning due the officials being unable to distinguish the difference. The only way to stop cheating is first to detect it and then to punish it. Video will allow us to do the first and it is then to see whether the various authorities have the stomach to do the second.
It's not an arbitary point I have chosen, it's the arbitary point that has been chosen by the authorities trialling the systems. At the moment it's for offside and location of fouls (penalty/no penalty). The will inevitably be a point where the authorities decide that there are decisions they don't want taken away from the referee, even if there are technologies that could help.
Personally I've seen enough bad refereeing from both the stands and on the pitch to not lament for a second the officials being given better tools to allow them to make better decisions. The only ones who should fear the changes are those that rely on bad decisions to get results.
To what levels will it be applied. Just to the premier league again i assume.
I believe the FA wish to trial it in the FA Cup next season, no doubt from the 4th/5th round onwards though.
I ask this as i was at a game on Saturday hartley wintney v Horley town. Hartley needed a point to win the league and promotion (they were denied last year as their ground needed upgrading). They were trailing 1-0, when they were denied a clear penalty which was a trip a yard inside the box. I saw it as i was inline. Lino gave a free kick outside. Of course they didn't score and lost. After last year it mattered to them as their ground has been updated, so it should also apply at this level.
agreed, but we all know it only matters at the highest level because of the money involved, and not morality. Sympathy for Hartley, but the FA will only care about the multi-million pound decisions and the decisions at the very top. The decisions that Mr Wenger makes a point about complaining about every week.
How much do you think this technology will cost? How could it possibly be filtered down to grass roots football?
because the FA could afford it?
So they could equip all grounds with live recording, instant playback, multiple angle equipment - and they can pay for the fourth official to carry out reviews? While we are at it they could also pay for goal line technology to be provided for all grounds.
Hartley Wintney play in tier NINE at a ground with a capacity of 2000 and an average home crowd of a couple of hundred.
Don't be silly!!
not saying I agree it should be done, but yes they could afford it.
Why not have it for penalties... Just the same as off side... Did the keeper move off his line, were there any attackers/defenders in the box when it was scored/missed. Can just see it now as they analyze frame by frame whether the keeper's foot is still on the line (as they do in cricket) when the ball is kicked.
Thats another 50 seconds added, game will finish on time though, but as it will thats less time for actual play.
There are sometimes delayed celebrations already. At West Brom v Arsenal the other week, the Robson-Kanu goal where he poked it under Cech and Mclean jumped out of the way, the ref went over to his assistant and they consulted for a while before pointing to the centre circle to indicate the goal had been awarded. I didn't see anyone objecting to that.
To what levels will it be applied. Just to the premier league again i assume.
I believe the FA wish to trial it in the FA Cup next season, no doubt from the 4th/5th round onwards though.
I ask this as i was at a game on Saturday hartley wintney v Horley town. Hartley needed a point to win the league and promotion (they were denied last year as their ground needed upgrading). They were trailing 1-0, when they were denied a clear penalty which was a trip a yard inside the box. I saw it as i was inline. Lino gave a free kick outside. Of course they didn't score and lost. After last year it mattered to them as their ground has been updated, so it should also apply at this level.
agreed, but we all know it only matters at the highest level because of the money involved, and not morality. Sympathy for Hartley, but the FA will only care about the multi-million pound decisions and the decisions at the very top. The decisions that Mr Wenger makes a point about complaining about every week.
How much do you think this technology will cost? How could it possibly be filtered down to grass roots football?
because the FA could afford it?
So they could equip all grounds with live recording, instant playback, multiple angle equipment - and they can pay for the fourth official to carry out reviews? While we are at it they could also pay for goal line technology to be provided for all grounds.
Hartley Wintney play in tier NINE at a ground with a capacity of 2000 and an average home crowd of a couple of hundred.
Don't be silly!!
They dont even get 200 usually but there was a few more than that Saturday but yes it was important to them.... How far would you go then.
For a tier 9 game in front of less than 200 spectators? - a ref and two linesmen - that's it.
Comments
1. Goals is scored, check for offside
2. Ball put in net, but flag goes up, check for offside
3. Freekick/penalty is given around the edge of the box, check which side of the line the offence took place.
None of those situations will take any significant time out of the game, none will undermine the on-pitch officials, and none will requires matters of opinion to get involved. Nobody is talking about using video for all decisions, just matters of fact that can be determined one way of the other quickly.
I'd far rather the right decisons were made, whether it be on-pitch or via video, than the alternative of letting wrong decision ruin matches because we were too afraid to try something else.
A wrong decision never "ruined" a match. The game itself is still the same, just the outcome is (or isn't) to your liking, depending on which stand you are sitting in...
Also its total bollox that it will extend the game time, whenever there is a contentious decision at the moment, the referee is surrounded by players who piss and whine, that takes more time to sort out than a bloke in the stand checking a replay.
Great news!
Hartley Wintney play in tier NINE at a ground with a capacity of 2000 and an average home crowd of a couple of hundred.
Don't be silly!!
Not to worry will only add another 50 seconds. Game will finish on time assuming they dont stop the clock, until the losing manager whinges there was no added time for all the reviews which are only a matter of opinion in most cases.
Do we really want to change the game by ruining the passionate, exciting crescendo of a goal being slammed in the net and the instant ecstacy that creates and, instead, having every goal diminshed by being a mere trigger for a desk-based administrator to pore over evidence and make a determination?
I don't want a goal to turn into a laborious, dull excercise of waiting for a faceless clerk to tell me if we can increment one team's goal-count by one. I want it to remain as it is - a public reason to go instantaneously fucking mental.
My only concern is that it becomes like front-foot no-balls in cricket. I.e. whenever the ball is bouncing around the box the linesman simply won't flag for offside, even if he thinks there is one, knowing that any incorrect goals will get reviewed and disallowed. It will take strong leadership from the FA on this, which is never a given unfortunately.
Concerns about games running overly long seem to be massively exagerated. Technology will initially be used in a small set of well defined circumstances, trialled extensively and judged on it's merits. If successful then they'll expand it's use and each expansion will be trialled and judged on it's merits (quality of decisions vs time taken). So checking to see if a goals should be ruled out for offside is quick and easy and improved decisions, include it.
Also, mentioned of "thin edge of the wedge" are a bit off the mark, see "the slippery slope fallacy" for why; http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Goal - wait a minute, don't celebrate yet - ok, now you can celebrate.
Totally agree with using it to issue retrospective bans for bad tackles etc that refs miss and can live with the goal line cameras. However, don't want to see the human element of the game diminished any further, even if some decisions are given incorrectly (shit happens get over it)
You are agitating for change up to the arbitrary point that you have chosen. Others (as I have said) will not agree, they will want to take it further. At which point you become the stick-in-the-mud, like me, and they tell you they are progressive and that change is inevitable
As it stands, players cheat, continually and without remorse. They will take any advantage they can possibly get and try to con the ref at every opportunity. If we could remove even a fraction of that from the game then I think it's worth it. I want to see great football, not great cheaters winning due the officials being unable to distinguish the difference. The only way to stop cheating is first to detect it and then to punish it. Video will allow us to do the first and it is then to see whether the various authorities have the stomach to do the second.
It's not an arbitary point I have chosen, it's the arbitary point that has been chosen by the authorities trialling the systems. At the moment it's for offside and location of fouls (penalty/no penalty). The will inevitably be a point where the authorities decide that there are decisions they don't want taken away from the referee, even if there are technologies that could help.
Personally I've seen enough bad refereeing from both the stands and on the pitch to not lament for a second the officials being given better tools to allow them to make better decisions. The only ones who should fear the changes are those that rely on bad decisions to get results.
Thats another 50 seconds added, game will finish on time though, but as it will thats less time for actual play.