The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
So to clarify: the red team had been attacking and crossed the ball into the box, the curve on the cross meant the ball went behind the goalline and came back in before the keeper caught it and set up the blue team's attack? And I assume when the ball hit the bar (from the blue team's centre forward's header) it bounced into the goal and back out, the defender hacked it away, it went upstairs for the video ref to judge that it had crossed the line and award the goal?
If we get video refs, wouldn't they be in addition to the existing goalline technology rather than replacing it? I don't think the video ref would look that far back if play had continued for that length of time. And if the video refs were monitoring whether the red team's cross had crossed the goalline at the other end (the end the blue team were defending) before coming back in, wouldn't he/she have seen that the ball had gone out of play and told the ref via the microphone, so that the ref could then bring play back for the goal kick to the blue team?
Sorry if I've misunderstood/am being dim.
You've understood perfectly.
So, are you saying that the video ref would monitor the original cross and tell the ref to stop the game? If that's the case, the ref would probably be stopping the attack in order to give the attacking team a goal kick. Awful!
And, if you think the video ref wouldn't look that far back (maybe six seconds), we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand. Also awful!
In my view, video refs are a non-starter.
If the ball goes out of play the game stops. The team now attacking (the blue team here) can have no complaints that their lightning quick counter attack has been brought back, because the ball had gone out of play before it began! How is that 'awful'?
You've picked a very particular, rare scenario to come to the conclusion that video refs wouldn't work. Neither I nor anyone else is saying that there wouldn't still be controversial incidents, whereby perhaps one wrong decision was missed but another was spotted and corrected. But I come back to the point I made before: video refs will help us get more decisions right than we currently do. That's reason enough to have them.
It's awful, simply because the game would be stopped at exactly the most exciting moment of the match, without anyone on the pitch (players or officials) or in the crowd knowing why, and the ref would award possession to the team about to score, but 100 yards from where they are.
We don't know how rare it is, because we don't look for it. But you're right that I've picked an extreme example to make the point.
Football's the most exciting sport in the world. Video refs would diminish that significantly.
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
So to clarify: the red team had been attacking and crossed the ball into the box, the curve on the cross meant the ball went behind the goalline and came back in before the keeper caught it and set up the blue team's attack? And I assume when the ball hit the bar (from the blue team's centre forward's header) it bounced into the goal and back out, the defender hacked it away, it went upstairs for the video ref to judge that it had crossed the line and award the goal?
If we get video refs, wouldn't they be in addition to the existing goalline technology rather than replacing it? I don't think the video ref would look that far back if play had continued for that length of time. And if the video refs were monitoring whether the red team's cross had crossed the goalline at the other end (the end the blue team were defending) before coming back in, wouldn't he/she have seen that the ball had gone out of play and told the ref via the microphone, so that the ref could then bring play back for the goal kick to the blue team?
Sorry if I've misunderstood/am being dim.
You've understood perfectly.
So, are you saying that the video ref would monitor the original cross and tell the ref to stop the game? If that's the case, the ref would probably be stopping the attack in order to give the attacking team a goal kick. Awful!
And, if you think the video ref wouldn't look that far back (maybe six seconds), we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand. Also awful!
In my view, video refs are a non-starter.
If the ball goes out of play the game stops. The team now attacking (the blue team here) can have no complaints that their lightning quick counter attack has been brought back, because the ball had gone out of play before it began! How is that 'awful'?
You've picked a very particular, rare scenario to come to the conclusion that video refs wouldn't work. Neither I nor anyone else is saying that there wouldn't still be controversial incidents, whereby perhaps one wrong decision was missed but another was spotted and corrected. But I come back to the point I made before: video refs will help us get more decisions right than we currently do. That's reason enough to have them.
It's awful, simply because the game would be stopped at exactly the most exciting moment of the match, without anyone on the pitch (players or officials) or in the crowd knowing why, and the ref would award possession to the team about to score, but 100 yards from where they are.
We don't know how rare it is, because we don't look for it. But you're right that I've picked an extreme example to make the point.
Football's the most exciting sport in the world. Video refs would diminish that significantly.
In your previous post, you said how awful it would be that "we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand" by having video refs in this scenario. Now you're saying it would be awful for the right decision to be made just because it *might* be made as a team is attacking! The ref can easily explain to the players why he's brought it back for the goal kick (the defending team will probably have appealed for it anyway), and the crowd will twig pretty quickly too (indeed, if the blue team are the home team the crowd will probably have appealed for it too). If the ball went out of play, everyone accepts that play must be stopped.
I really don't see how video refs are going to diminish the excitement of football in any way. Even if some goals are now awarded after 30 seconds, I don't see why people would object to that - see my example from the West Brom game the other week.
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
So to clarify: the red team had been attacking and crossed the ball into the box, the curve on the cross meant the ball went behind the goalline and came back in before the keeper caught it and set up the blue team's attack? And I assume when the ball hit the bar (from the blue team's centre forward's header) it bounced into the goal and back out, the defender hacked it away, it went upstairs for the video ref to judge that it had crossed the line and award the goal?
If we get video refs, wouldn't they be in addition to the existing goalline technology rather than replacing it? I don't think the video ref would look that far back if play had continued for that length of time. And if the video refs were monitoring whether the red team's cross had crossed the goalline at the other end (the end the blue team were defending) before coming back in, wouldn't he/she have seen that the ball had gone out of play and told the ref via the microphone, so that the ref could then bring play back for the goal kick to the blue team?
Sorry if I've misunderstood/am being dim.
You've understood perfectly.
So, are you saying that the video ref would monitor the original cross and tell the ref to stop the game? If that's the case, the ref would probably be stopping the attack in order to give the attacking team a goal kick. Awful!
And, if you think the video ref wouldn't look that far back (maybe six seconds), we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand. Also awful!
In my view, video refs are a non-starter.
If the ball goes out of play the game stops. The team now attacking (the blue team here) can have no complaints that their lightning quick counter attack has been brought back, because the ball had gone out of play before it began! How is that 'awful'?
You've picked a very particular, rare scenario to come to the conclusion that video refs wouldn't work. Neither I nor anyone else is saying that there wouldn't still be controversial incidents, whereby perhaps one wrong decision was missed but another was spotted and corrected. But I come back to the point I made before: video refs will help us get more decisions right than we currently do. That's reason enough to have them.
It's awful, simply because the game would be stopped at exactly the most exciting moment of the match, without anyone on the pitch (players or officials) or in the crowd knowing why, and the ref would award possession to the team about to score, but 100 yards from where they are.
We don't know how rare it is, because we don't look for it. But you're right that I've picked an extreme example to make the point.
Football's the most exciting sport in the world. Video refs would diminish that significantly.
In your previous post, you said how awful it would be that "we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand" by having video refs in this scenario. Now you're saying it would be awful for the right decision to be made just because it *might* be made as a team is attacking! The ref can easily explain to the players why he's brought it back for the goal kick (the defending team will probably have appealed for it anyway), and the crowd will twig pretty quickly too (indeed, if the blue team are the home team the crowd will probably have appealed for it too). If the ball went out of play, everyone accepts that play must be stopped.
I really don't see how video refs are going to diminish the excitement of football in any way. Even if some goals are now awarded after 30 seconds, I don't see why people would object to that - see my example from the West Brom game the other week.
It's awful in this instance because we would go from a position where, if it happened, no-one would know or care, to a position where everyone knows, but the officials decode whether to overturn it.
In my view, the repetitive interruptions and delays would diminish the excitement of football. In sports where video evidence/technology works well (rugby, cricket) and quite well (tennis), there are natural breaks in play. It's not the case in football.
My love for football is bigger than the minor irritant of the odd wrong decision.
The gist of some of the views on the last page by some people is, its ok to have a goal awarded by a wrong decision as long as the offside one is corrected.... Bizarre.
I don't think there's anything bizarre about it.
No-one is saying that this video ref will ensure that every single goal will now be correctly allowed or disallowed. What it will do is help ensure that more goals are correctly allowed or disallowed. Surely that's a good thing?
Just because something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it's not worth having.
So, what do you do in the instance where the video ref conclusively proves that the goal was not offside, but the attack, that stemmed from a goalkeeper's throw should not have taken place, because the ref should have awarded them a goalkick instead?
If we can tell that the ball went out of play for a goal kick at the other end and the ref/linesman missed it, then that's an argument for extending goalline technology to cover the whole goalline (if that's possible) rather than just the area between the posts. It's not an argument against having this video ref.
Let's face it though - cases like that are going to be rare. The video ref will, as it showed last night, help us get more decisions right than we currently do. I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for your answer. You've possibly misinterpreted the scenario (probably my fault for not being clear). Can you look at this example and see how it should be resolved?
Blue team scores a goal (keeper catches the ball, throws to fullback, fullback passes to winger, winger crosses, centre forward heads it goalwards, hits the bar, bounces down, back into play, defender hacks it to row Z). The ref "goes upstairs" to the video ref. He/she determines that there was no offside, the ball did not go out of play when it was crossed, it did not go out of play when the full back passed it to the winger, it did not go out of play when the keeper threw it to the fullback, the keeper did not carry the ball out of the penalty area, but the ball crossed the keeper's line when it was crossed, before he caught it (ie at the opposite end of the pitch to the end in which the goal was scored).
What do you give? A goal to blues or a goalkick to blues?
So to clarify: the red team had been attacking and crossed the ball into the box, the curve on the cross meant the ball went behind the goalline and came back in before the keeper caught it and set up the blue team's attack? And I assume when the ball hit the bar (from the blue team's centre forward's header) it bounced into the goal and back out, the defender hacked it away, it went upstairs for the video ref to judge that it had crossed the line and award the goal?
If we get video refs, wouldn't they be in addition to the existing goalline technology rather than replacing it? I don't think the video ref would look that far back if play had continued for that length of time. And if the video refs were monitoring whether the red team's cross had crossed the goalline at the other end (the end the blue team were defending) before coming back in, wouldn't he/she have seen that the ball had gone out of play and told the ref via the microphone, so that the ref could then bring play back for the goal kick to the blue team?
Sorry if I've misunderstood/am being dim.
You've understood perfectly.
So, are you saying that the video ref would monitor the original cross and tell the ref to stop the game? If that's the case, the ref would probably be stopping the attack in order to give the attacking team a goal kick. Awful!
And, if you think the video ref wouldn't look that far back (maybe six seconds), we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand. Also awful!
In my view, video refs are a non-starter.
If the ball goes out of play the game stops. The team now attacking (the blue team here) can have no complaints that their lightning quick counter attack has been brought back, because the ball had gone out of play before it began! How is that 'awful'?
You've picked a very particular, rare scenario to come to the conclusion that video refs wouldn't work. Neither I nor anyone else is saying that there wouldn't still be controversial incidents, whereby perhaps one wrong decision was missed but another was spotted and corrected. But I come back to the point I made before: video refs will help us get more decisions right than we currently do. That's reason enough to have them.
It's awful, simply because the game would be stopped at exactly the most exciting moment of the match, without anyone on the pitch (players or officials) or in the crowd knowing why, and the ref would award possession to the team about to score, but 100 yards from where they are.
We don't know how rare it is, because we don't look for it. But you're right that I've picked an extreme example to make the point.
Football's the most exciting sport in the world. Video refs would diminish that significantly.
In your previous post, you said how awful it would be that "we're now acknowledging that a "wrong" decision should be allowed to stand" by having video refs in this scenario. Now you're saying it would be awful for the right decision to be made just because it *might* be made as a team is attacking! The ref can easily explain to the players why he's brought it back for the goal kick (the defending team will probably have appealed for it anyway), and the crowd will twig pretty quickly too (indeed, if the blue team are the home team the crowd will probably have appealed for it too). If the ball went out of play, everyone accepts that play must be stopped.
I really don't see how video refs are going to diminish the excitement of football in any way. Even if some goals are now awarded after 30 seconds, I don't see why people would object to that - see my example from the West Brom game the other week.
It's awful in this instance because we would go from a position where, if it happened, no-one would know or care, to a position where everyone knows, but the officials decode whether to overturn it.
In my view, the repetitive interruptions and delays would diminish the excitement of football. In sports where video evidence/technology works well (rugby, cricket) and quite well (tennis), there are natural breaks in play. It's not the case in football.
My love for football is bigger than the minor irritant of the odd wrong decision.
But we would know about it, wouldn't we? TV cameras would show that the ball had gone behind (as they already do).
I don't think there would be repetitive interruptions and delays - in the trials so far it's only been applied to, and would continue to be applied to, "key incidents concerning goals, red cards, mistaken identities and penalties" (quote from http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39435430). And to be fair, there are already lots of natural breaks in play, whenever the ball goes dead - and those are only lengthened if one team is desperately hanging onto a lead and time-wasting. I don't think taking a bit longer to get the most important decisions right is going to spoil the experience of a game of football for anyone.
Comments
We don't know how rare it is, because we don't look for it. But you're right that I've picked an extreme example to make the point.
Football's the most exciting sport in the world. Video refs would diminish that significantly.
I really don't see how video refs are going to diminish the excitement of football in any way. Even if some goals are now awarded after 30 seconds, I don't see why people would object to that - see my example from the West Brom game the other week.
In my view, the repetitive interruptions and delays would diminish the excitement of football. In sports where video evidence/technology works well (rugby, cricket) and quite well (tennis), there are natural breaks in play. It's not the case in football.
My love for football is bigger than the minor irritant of the odd wrong decision.
I don't think there would be repetitive interruptions and delays - in the trials so far it's only been applied to, and would continue to be applied to, "key incidents concerning goals, red cards, mistaken identities and penalties" (quote from http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39435430). And to be fair, there are already lots of natural breaks in play, whenever the ball goes dead - and those are only lengthened if one team is desperately hanging onto a lead and time-wasting. I don't think taking a bit longer to get the most important decisions right is going to spoil the experience of a game of football for anyone.